Author has written 10 stories for Yu-Gi-Oh GX, Yu-Gi-Oh, Final Fantasy VII, Durarara!!/デュラララ!!, Fullmetal Alchemist, and Final Fantasy X.
"Those who exchange freedom for security gain neither." -Benjamin Franklyn (If you agree, copy and paste to your profile! Because we're here right now.)
Current Works Being Posted (updates on Tuesdays unless I specify a break, there's an emergency...or I randomly forget):
(Any updates on 'complete' works are one of three things: an important update/request, a poll notice, or an alert to a new story being posted.)
Minerva's Blessing, FFVII: 60 chapters (and a reference list) posted, undefined. (Part 2 started.)
Fates of Worlds - Dimensions: Homecoming, FMA:B/FFVII (CA series): 19 chapters posted, undefined.
Catalyst Array is currently being edited (Chapter 44 finished, currently sporadic, as people who added me as an author alert apparently get notified when I replace a chapter...) for missed spelling/grammar/particular details. It won't significantly change anything in the story, so a re-read isn't necessary. Likely the biggest differences are adding extra thoughts about Al to the first few chapters and replacing 'Bahamut' with 'Bahamut Fury' for Genesis (because it's what he had in Crisis Core).
NOTE: Voter picks are listed from highest to lowest, and I will try to work from top to bottom, but no promises on that working (even with a large vote gap), especially not if certain options had equal or close votes. Nothing with fewer than 4 votes will be included in these lists.
Works In Progress: Random/Top Voter Picks (still being made into posting material, in random order, but will eventually be posted):
(In the Random/Top Voter Picks list, there will be 1 - 3 which are unrelated to CA and 1 or 2 CA options.)
Truth's Gatekeeper: The Path to Rebirth, Harry Potter/FMA:B, undefined number of chapters (13 votes)
Lightworkers, Yu-Gi-Oh!, undefined number of chapters (the only one not a voter pick)
Primal Deceit (FoWPD), Harry Potter/FFVII/FMA:B (CA series), undefined number of chapters (9 votes)
Hope's Gambit (HG), FFVII/RWBY/FMA:B, follows from CA, undefined number of chapters (8 votes)
Transference, Harry Potter, undefined number of chapters (this one will get posted eventually) (8 votes)
Works In Progress: Random/Secondary Voter Picks (still being made into posting material, in random order, may or may not be posted):
(The Random/Secondary Voter Picks list is for stories not related to CA; changes based on polls or my willingness to write a story.)
(Not yet named), Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's, undefined number of chapters (4 votes)
(Not yet named), FFXII/FFVII, undefined number of chapters: (4 votes)
(Not yet named), Durarara!!!/Inu-Yasha, undefined number of chapters: (4 votes)
Works In Progress: CA Secondary Voter Picks (still being formulated, in random order, may or may not be posted):
(This list likely won't be added to now. The order of the series initials indicates the world the story takes place on based on the series it's from; WoW = Azeroth, LotR = Middle Earth, FFVII = Gaia, and so on. The FMA:B listing is due to Ed, or to other Amestrians in New Blood and the FoWD branches.)
New Blood (SH-NB or NB), FFVII/FMA:B/Harry Potter, follows from CA and SH, undefined number of chapters (8 votes)
The Lifebringers (FoWD-LB or LB), WoW/FFVII/FMA:B, FoWD branch, undefined number of chapters (6 votes)
Light and Darkness (FoWLaD or LaD), RWBY/FFVII/FMA:B, FoW branch, undefined number of chapters (5 votes)
Age of Restoration (FoWAoR or AoR), LotR/FFVII/FMA:B, FoW branch, undefined number of chapters (5 votes)
(Not yet named) (FoWD-???), original world/FFVII/FMA:B, FoWD branch, undefined number of chapters (5 votes)
Shadow of the Empire (FoWSotE or SotE), FFXII/FFVII/FMA:B, FoW branch, undefined number of chapters (4 votes)
Obscure Interface (OI), FFVII/Digimon 01/02/FMA:B, follows from CA, undefined number of chapters (4 votes)
Possible Sequels or Re-Writes (for now, it's not a long list, but we'll see if that changes):
(CA Secondary Voter Picks covers this for the CA series, as those are all sequels of a sort!)
Focus 10 = tentative sequel in the works
Trials of Love = debating a re-write/original won't be removed
Series Stories and Paths:
The Catalyst Array Series (will be added to as more paths are completed):
Every path of this story line can technically be read to its conclusion without reading the other paths, but they all begin with the story called Catalyst Array (CA for short). Any stories following from FoW, FoWD, or SH also have intro notes in-story to explain why I chose the required chapters to be read, so please check them for details! Especially with stories following from FoWD.
1) CA, then read Salvation's Hands (SH)
2) CA, then read Fates of Worlds (FoW)
3) CA, then read the first 33 (35 by FFN's numbering) chapters of FoW, finish with Fates of Worlds - Dimensions (FoWD)
4) (Still being worked on, won't be valid until Homecoming is being posted!) CA, then read the first 33 (35 by FFN's numbering) chapters of FoW, followed by the first 11 (12 by FFN's numbering) chapters of FoWD, finish with FoWD: Homecoming (FoWD-HC or HC)
The '10' series (due to Pretty Wilde liking themed story names, all stories in this series will have a '10' in their name in deference to her):
Begins with Pretty Wilde's story 10 Seconds (https://www.fanfiction.net/s/7808832/1/10-Seconds), then the Focus 10 story. (May add another to this later.)
General and 'personal' data suitable for FFN:
When I first visited this site, the site data stipulated that FFN was a place for writers to post their works for the purpose of getting "constructive criticism" in order to improve their writing. This is my purpose for posting, and I use what I learn here to improve my original works. As such, reviews which just say 'I like it' or 'good job' actually bother me after awhile because it's not useful to me if that's all you say. I track my story popularity by hits, not by reviews, and the fact that someone read it—whether they said anything or not—means they like it enough to have read it; that's completely fine by me. For anyone who has actually given me advice on improving my writing or alerted me to things to watch for, thank you!
And Khait Khepri, I couldn't even have finished FoWD in a reasonable time without your help, so double and triple thank yous for all the back and forth emails and PMs! And now double-quadruple thanks for taking on some extra stories to help me find holes and work towards advancing them!
Also, Celesta SunStar, thank you for taking on some proofing of Hope's Gambit and my random RWBY story!
Since I like a lot of manga, anime, and RPG-style games, I'm not going to list them all here...Not all of the ones I like are represented on my favorites list, particularly in regards to stories by CLAMP, since most of their stories don't actually have a fandom. If anyone's interested in a list of names or asking if I know a particular story, they can PM me; I don't want to post a list of over a hundred titles. My only other fandom currently is Harry Potter.
So everyone is aware, because someone called everything below this abrasive, offensive, and (effectively) arrogant, I tend to be blunt, especially when I'm frustrated with people ditching logic completely, and the whole pet peeves section was sparked by such frustration.
I encourage writers to write AU's, either from a particular point in the story line forward, or from a point pre-story, which could mean changing the entire world's background, form, and functions. In fact, I prefer to read stories which don't just regurgitate what the original author did, so please, have fun making changes. All I ask is that you do it in a way which makes sense, regardless of how much of an 'emotional writer' you are, particularly regarding changing characters. To that end, the first part of my Major Pet Peeves section has some useful information to help things make sense. And please remember to tell people in an A/N that you've changed things—for those of us who read them, they're very, very useful and appreciated!
About "writing style": Everyone seems to have vastly different definitions of what this refers to, from perspectives (1st/3rd person, omniscient/limited omni/etc.) to ways of presenting information to the primary focus (emotion vs. logic) of a person's writing. The first two are the only actually valid "writing styles" because ALL good stories need both emotion and logic to be a good story. It isn't a "writing style" difference when a person writes primarily or solely with one or the other, it's a lack of ability to process the one not being used. Since I know very well that good writers can make people laugh or cry and still give valid logic, it's also entirely possible to balance the two. You can throw as much emotion as you like into a story—but that doesn't excuse ditching logic, especially when writing about a character who is primarily logical. You may have been trying to show them as mature, but without logical thought processes being explained, in story, to validate a behavior, it just looks unanimously and extremely immature in a character.
As a writer, YOU may know what you're thinking or what your premise is, but no one else can read your mind. If you don't explain those thought processes, readers won't know what your premise is and can only react based on what you HAVE written. No, your intent ISN'T obvious unless you put it in writing! This is also true of events taking place, descriptions, discussions, and so on—readers cannot read your mind, so won't know a certain thing happened, what it looks like, or what was said unless you put it in writing. A character may have asked another to hand them something, but unless you state somewhere that the item was handed over, the reader just has to guess that it...probably was? That's not a good reading environment, so please remember to write down all the thoughts about your characters and events which you're thinking, otherwise readers won't know what was actually supposed to happen. This is print text, not a TV show or movie!
Major Pet Peeves:
Anything here is plain, simple, and easy to assess as either valid or not, no hidden meanings attached (so don't look for them). Life is way too stressful if you spend it looking for hidden meanings (or hidden insults). So, to (hopefully) keep people from unintentionally reading things they either don't care about or take offense to because they can't stop looking for hidden meanings, I decided to provide the short-hand list of peeves up front, which you can easily read, then decide if you want to read the expanded peeves and fixes for them. Only 2) doesn't have a 'fix' because a lot of people don't believe in or agree with any of it; it's more an explanation so people have a reference to how I use them in writing.
1) Changing the intrinsic traits of characters without having a damned good reason to back up the change.
2) The way in which people use Divine Love and soulmates (especially in writing).
3) Using "It's magic!" to 'explain' how something in a story happened, then stopping there.
4) People's incorrect use of time travel and reincarnation in stories.
5) The mass amount of sex written into stories which don't have any use for it, detracting from the story itself.
6) The excessively poor language skills of 'writers' on FFN (or AO3, or other similar sites).
If you read further, don't take offense to my phrasing or opinions; if you don't care about those or ways to improve your writing, then stop reading here and skip to my works to find whatever brought you here or go to a different page before you get yourself mad at things that are completely optional. No, I don't expect everyone to write "for me", I just won't read things I find difficult to deal with or which weren't labeled for what it actually is; similarly, I don't "expect" anyone who reads this to use it. To each their own. This is NOT intended as an insult, subtle or otherwise, so don't look for insults, regardless of bluntness.
Explained Peeves and fixes for most of them:
First, a valuable note: One thing I've noticed about today's current culture (nearly world-wide) is that everyone seems to think they need to end chapters on cliff-hangers all the time. The truth is that, if you've got a good story line, you don't, and cliff-hanger after cliff-hanger actually gets annoying and tiring after awhile. Society pushes the aspect of using them (to get people to keep coming back), especially on TV, but that's a cheap way of getting people to read your works. If it was good enough to read in the first place, people will come back on their own, you don't have to keep ending every chapter in a cliff-hanger. The ability to get people to keep coming back without cliff-hangers, or with only some when a single event within the larger story is too big to complete in one chapter, is the sign of a good writer. As such, if you want to see where you stand, give writing without cliff-hangers a try.
1) Changing the intrinsic traits of characters without having a damned good reason to back up the change: First, many people don't seem to know what qualifies as an intrinsic (unchanging) character trait, and second, almost no one seems to realize that even changing the world around a character (creating an AU) wouldn't change these traits unless it was something extreme. It's not that these traits can't be changed; they can (and I encourage people to do so), but they need a valid reason to support the change, not just an arbitrary "I feel like it and it's an AU." Hiding behind the excuse "it's an AU" is utterly lame and just makes for a bad story which doesn't make sense. People who arbitrarily change these traits fit into three categories: the noted "I can do what I want, it's an AU" category; the "character blind" category (they're writing about characters they know nothing about, which makes me ask, "Why are you even writing about them, then?"); or the "self-insert into an existing character" category (basically, they make the character behave exactly the way they themselves behave).
Because someone thought my note about being "character blind" meant you shouldn't use ideas gained from unusual/unfamiliar sources (at least, that's as best as I can figure because the comment came out of nowhere and nothing else in my profile could have sparked it), I would like to clarify: An idea can come from anywhere, and if some picture/song/etc. of something unrelated to the canon story (or stories) the fic is based on sparked an idea, good for you, and feel free to run with it. That's not the same thing as taking a story you've done ZERO or minimal research on and trying to use those characters, because that means you pretty much know nothing about the characters or how they behave in canon. That makes it extremely difficult to use them and stay even marginally "in character". If you just found a new story and want to write about it, then at least find out what the story and characters are like before you start playing with them, whether that's thanks to reading/watching/playing the canon source or through wikia research.
Here are some notable examples of intrinsic traits which come to mind, though I'll probably add more to this list later (and feel free to offer me suggestions to add, too!):
i) Changing a character's established sexual preferences: This very often happens for one of two reasons; the writer feels the chosen partner is better for them than the canon one, or the writer really wants gay/het sex. I will openly agree that most canon series pick especially bad pairings for their characters (Hell, Rowling herself admitted Ron and Hermione were a bad pairing on her part!), but that doesn't necessarily excuse changing a character's established sexual preference, as that is indeed a trait intrinsic to the character. When a character waffles around or is extremely awkward in any relationship they're shown in, I would call them 'not clearly defined' and can be more easily adjusted to fit a situation, much like someone not defined at all. This may also depend on when in the canon series you're starting your story, as well as the background you're giving it, as Harry Potter is extremely awkward until into sixth year and could easily be changed, but in seventh year, that becomes harder (he's established as het).
For the purposes of a story line which makes sense, extreme violence or forced exposure to aspects of sexuality can strongly impact a character's preferences, and even change them, but in more normal circumstances, it needs to take time to build and has to be exclusive to the person chosen. This usually means, when making a straight character gay, that the straight character would eventually have an epiphany which would reveal that they truly love this particular person, but no, they aren't gay—it's unique to this individual. Of course, that doesn't mean you can't change the sexual preferences of any established characters, just don't go crazy with doing so. Please actually think about what you're doing, why you're doing it, and if it's really needed. I address the gay issue more clearly in 5) iii).
Examples of characters whose preferences aren't defined: Tseng (FFVII), Shezska (FMA), Kaiser and Johan Anderson (Yu-Gi-Oh! GX), Kaiba Seto and Atem (Yu-Gi-Oh!)
Examples of characters whose preferences aren't clearly defined: Edward Elric (FMA, leans to het), Harry Potter (Harry Potter, leans to het), Yuugi Mutou (Yu-Gi-Oh!, leans to het)
Examples of characters whose preferences are clearly defined: Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger (Harry Potter, both het), Draculaura (Monster High, het), Roy Mustang and Riza Hawkeye (FMA, both het), Anzu Masaki/Tea Gardener and Jonouchi Katsuya/Joey Wheeler (Yu-Gi-Oh!, both het), Yuuki Juudai/Jaden Yuki (Yu-Gi-Oh! GX, pan—"Yubel" is actually both male and female through fusion from the start, and he 'loved' both of them in one body, meaning he could go any which way)
I have ZERO issue with gay relationships! Hell, I write about them, too! I'm asking you, as the writer, to make it make sense!
ii) Harry Potter (obviously from the Harry Potter universe): His two traits are that he doesn't pick fights (99% of the fights he got into were started by Voldie, other Death Eaters, Draco, Ron, or others, and Harry just reacted in defense of his friend/s or himself) and that he doesn't hold grudges (he doesn't want to 'punish' the Dursleys, just get away from them). By extension, Harry intrinsically can't be evil. However, these can be changed either by making the abuse he suffered at home extreme (in canon, it was bad, but not anything like extreme) or by having him raised by someone in the criminal element, muggle or magical, in which he was forced to participate in (violent) crimes from a young age.
iii) Draculaura (from Monster High): She has two traits; she doesn't get revenge (though on a very rare occasion, she helps a friend do so), and she can't eat meat or blood (strange for a vampire, and a shockingly strong reaction). In the case of revenge, if she had grown up in a household where revenge was practiced and encouraged on a regular basis, she would do so. For her rejection of blood and meat, speaking as someone whose body rejects a food type completely (squash in my case, even things like pumpkin pie), her reaction (which has an ingrained reason) would mean she would just immediately or within minutes throw up blood or meat she tried to ingest, especially after 1600 years. Just being poor and having starved isn't enough to counteract this kind of reaction (again, been there, done that, with exactly this kind of reaction); the only option is for someone to have repeatedly forced her to eat the meat/blood during her formative years (in her case, those would probably be when she was first turned) until she stopped throwing it up. It would still make her feel sick, but then she'd be able to keep it down if she had to.
For the record, it's actually impossible for Draculaura to be poor because her father is 10,000 years old and has amassed a lot of stuff to make money off of, including the old coins themselves. So, if you're going to do this, please offer a valid reason for how this state came to be.
iv) The Turks collectively (from FFVII): Shockingly often, I see writers completely disregard the intrinsic fact that these people, as a whole, are equivalent to Secret Service or Special Ops agents (including the dirty work, like assassination, they do). By extension, they need to be highly intelligent and skilled, cunning and alert, and highly adaptable. They would be dead if they weren't, and unless you're just writing pure crack (and say so, in which case, go right ahead), this can't functionally be changed without making the Turks themselves defunct. You may as well just take them out of the story completely if you're going to try to present them as moronic bully-boys.
v) Edward Elric (from Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood/manga): This one is more about people using something which isn't intrinsic to him as though it is, rather than which traits are actually intrinsic; I don't think anyone questions that intellect and determination are part of his make-up, they just tend to get put on the back-burner in favor of his 'short' rants. No, those rants are neither intrinsic nor some sort of mental disorder, they are a choice, otherwise there would be no exceptions to him doing so (Teacher calling him 'runt'; Nina and Selim calling him 'little'). Also, no one in real life comments on a person's height even a tiny fraction of the times this is mentioned in FMA (all versions do this), and everyone in Amestris knows he's a child, so they wouldn't actually be expecting anyone tall, anyway—there was never a reason for them to have commented. As such, because this trait isn't intrinsic, I do have the right to change it without it being called "out of character", either by having him grow up or simply removing the catalyst—people calling him 'short' repeatedly. Or both, as I did in my Catalyst Array series.
vi) Yuuki Juudai/Jaden Yuki and Yubel's relationship (from Yu-Gi-Oh! GX): Yes, this bond (Divine Love) is intrinsic; however, that doesn't mean the form it takes is unchanging. This will be addressed in the next peeve (about Divine Love and soulmates), because it's way too big to put here without first explaining some things. And yes, how Divine Love and soulmates are used are pet peeves of mine.
2) The way in which people use Divine Love and soulmates (especially in writing): Yes, there was a time when I also believed 'love so strong one would die without the other' was somehow romantic. That was before I grew up and realized it's actually extremely creepy, and it encourages horrific, unhealthy dependence on another person, which is mentally and emotionally harmful to both the living and the dead. Generally, these are used in writing in order to literally force together two people who shouldn't be together just because the writer wants them to have sex (they would be better served just writing pure smut and leaving it at that), which is a disgusting way to use it, even taking into account people's false perception of them. As such, now that I've called it 'people's false perception', I need to explain what I've researched about them, from assessing information in spiritual, psychological, and social development sources.
i) First, to be clear (whether people want to acknowledge this or not), romantic love is the least reliable, most conditional, and most fickle of every kind of love which exists. Especially in a society which thinks lust is love ('love at first sight' is actually 'lust at first sight', a purely chemical reaction which doesn't mean you're actually good for one another—it's usually the opposite) and people think they know one another in a year or less of spending a lot of time together (normally, it takes 3 years or more to really know someone enough to know whether or not you're good for one another over the long haul).
ii) On both Divine Love and soulmates: The reality of both of these types of love is that they were never intended to be romantic, even though that can work in certain circumstances. This isn't a use-all, and isn't something to be sought or encouraged. They also don't actually put people into a default state of one dying because the other does; that's a completely made-up fallacy someone created when they saw someone who was utterly dependent on their partner will themselves to death when their partner died (and people wonder why dependence is unhealthy?). Not only are both of these kinds of love very rare to find, but were intended to be a stable bond of caring both (or all, if there were more than two sharing the bond) parties could rely on. There are other types of love besides romantic, which all satisfy this requirement: familial (several variants, all slightly different), family in all but blood, and close friends. These options are all more likely to be long-lasting than any kind of romance, and are more likely to be the form these bonds take—when they aren't forcing romance because everyone thinks they need to.
iii) On Divine Love: These are two independent souls who repeatedly reincarnate together, meet, and become close. They may show up as parent and child, siblings, another familial relationship, family in all but blood, close friends, or (rarely) romantic. In particular, the caring they have for one another runs so deep that they normally can't knowingly or willingly harm the other (as humans, this sometimes can't be avoided, though), and if either repeatedly does harm to the other, something is very, very wrong in one or both of their lives. This also normally means they don't force their feelings on the other if the other doesn't feel the same way. Since romantic love is fickle, this depth of love can't be classed in that category; rather, it's an all-encompassing and unconditional love we currently have no established name for, other than this 'Divine Love', which isn't really helpful in defining it. On the other hand, because these are two separate souls, they have a higher likelihood of being capable of maintaining a romantic relationship—if they remember not to take it for granted—and that would still be rare.
iv) and 1) vi) On Juudai and Yubel's relationship: First, Yubel hasn't actually died and reincarnated since her creation (we'll set aside the question of how she ended up in a card, when those didn't exist back then), while Juudai has done so several times, each without his memory. There were only 3 possible types of bond they could have due to this dynamic in rebirth (or not): family in all but blood, close friends, or romantic. Juudai's rebirths meant the way he viewed her and life changed by his differing environments, so despite his promise in the first one, 'forever' doesn't (can't) feasibly exist or be valid for more than one lifetime. As long as she had a bond with him, that was obviously okay with her without her forcing herself on him, so it's likely both other types of bonds were the norm in other lifetimes.
In the most recent lifetime, both Yubel and Juudai got seriously screwed up, right from the time Juudai was a child and wasn't capable of feeling romantic love. With them merged together, there's no way their love is romantic, depth aside, and the only way a future incarnation of theirs could possibly once again be romantic is if this Juudai first had a romantic relationship with someone who had earned Yubel's approval so she could re-learn about it. The 'who' doesn't matter, it's the work which would go into earning Yubel's approval, and I'm sure most of the GX cast (or others from other story lines) could actually do that if they so chose to. Juudai's memory of the past gave him perspective; it did not, and could not, cause him to feel romantic love for Yubel just because it had happened in the past. That's not how reincarnation works, and in their present relationship, I saw nothing romantic, just both of them having warped views of 'love', though at least Juudai realized she had gone off the deep end and he had the sense to try to save her sanity (thank Heaven for that!).
v) On soulmates: These are widely known and accepted to be the two halves of the same soul. By extension, that would mean having a relationship with your soulmate is having a relationship with yourself, which is several levels of disturbing and ultimately narcissistic. A soulmate is intended to be the one who knows you best, who is your most trusted confidant, the go-to person for when something is wrong or needs to be explained and everyone else hasn't been able to help or get things to make sense. This would also mean there's no expectation, regardless of their respective genders, and by default, romantic relationships bring expectations. In virtually every case, that causes the collapse of the relationship, which causes a lot of suffering to both parties, all suffering which could have been avoided if they'd kept it platonic.
3) Using "It's magic!" to 'explain' how something in a story happened, then stopping there: Using "It's magic!" and stopping there is the cheap way to do it, just like how using "It's an AU, I can do what I want!" is a cheap way to arbitrarily change things 'just because'. This reason is viable, but don't just stop there, because that's not an explanation. What magic made it happen? What premise was it using? How did it do so? Using 'magic' can give you a lot of creative license to design your own spells, rituals, and potions, but give them some sort of premise—show some effort and research and actual attention to details! I've done this; my Catalyst Array series actually turned a series (FFVII) with a lot of plot holes into something that made sense, both by using FMA alchemy, and by using that basis to design further methods and purposes as I needed them. Some people really don't care if something makes sense or not, but my personal experiences are that a lot of readers appreciate a world and a story having a logical, viable basis.
4) People's incorrect use of time travel and reincarnation in stories: Admittedly, some writers have used time travel correctly, though normally only in the case of physically sending people back in time, and exceptionally few use reincarnation correctly.
i) On time travel: There are two options for this: either drop the mind and soul back into their past body or just physically drop them in the past.
When writers drop them in their past body, they somehow invariably think the past body would physically change to suit changes the future version had experienced. This cannot happen, because only energy is being sent back, not the future body, itself (which also includes genetics). Also, next to no one questions the fact that both the past body and the future one each already have a soul (even for me, this was a fairly recent realization, and forced me to reassess some elements of my own writing, which resulted in some story overhauls). By extension, they never think about what happens to the two similar souls, as one body can only maintain more than one soul for so long. They also tend to forget that the past body can't do what the future one did, because it hasn't had the training to do so, and training would be needed to get them in shape to do those things.
In the case of putting someone physically in the past so there are two of particular people, one older and one younger, this can be handled in two different ways depending on the basis of the story: either the future one plans to meet their past self, or they don't. However, this isn't as simple as just "they went back in time", because unless they have an established time loop (this already happened, so must happen in order to preserve the timeline), what they've actually created is a 'divergent path', or an alternate dimension, of the original path, because without the original path, the time traveler/s wouldn't have the knowledge or experience to take back with them in order to make appropriate changes. Most people aren't experts on this topic, so the difference between the two needs to be noted. If you're planning to write one of these types of stories and aren't sure which one to use, please ask me which it would be in order to gain the best effect in presentation.
ii) On reincarnation: I have now seen two correct uses of this, one which is current and I can name (Ouroboros by Novus Ars), one I can only describe vaguely because it's been so long. You can check out Ouroboros yourselves, but in the other, the people who had reincarnated (a number from FFVII into Harry Potter) only looked like their old selves because they had cast illusion magic on themselves.
First point: in reincarnation, the SOUL is the ONLY thing being reincarnated, NOT the genetics. By extension, no currently-living person's appearance will change. Ever. Well, unless they take specific steps to make their appearance match the past person's. Anyone who actually thinks Harry Potter is going to start looking like Sephiroth just because he's Sephiroth's reincarnation needs their head examined. Memory or lack thereof doesn't affect Harry's current genetics, which give him his appearance. By extension, unless someone is reincarnating into the same family line or the same part of the world, it would be virtually impossible for their past and present selves to look the same, or even similar.
That said, if you're using the basis of someone's appearance reverting to that of the person they were in the past, that would require delayed-activation CLONING, meaning the genetics of the original person ARE in the current person, and you then need an explanation for how those genetics got there and how the time-delay was set up to activate.
Second point: somehow, everyone thinks a reincarnated person with their memory restored will just be capable of using skills they had in a past life. The fact is, that's not possible. Their new body isn't trained to use those skills, regardless of 'knowing how', so they would have to train, and quite extensively, to bring their current body up to par to use them. The only benefit they would have is being able to do it faster because they're only doing half the job—training the body, not literally learning the skill as well.
Third point: whether anyone likes it or not, the current person had their own life and experiences before getting the memories of their past self. That means behaviors are already established, and introducing past memories, especially to someone teenaged or older, would only marginally change their behavior and personality. Some reactions may change due to the inclusion of additional data, but behaviors—not nearly so much. Harry wouldn't start behaving like Sephiroth just because he remembered that past. Of course, having the memories activate as a young child would mean the person as a teenager would behave a lot more like the person they were in the past, so if this is what you want to do, take appropriate steps!
5) The mass amount of sex written into stories which don't have any use for it, detracting from the story itself: There's a difference between a good story line with a small helping of sex (5-10% of the story is usually reasonable) and a story which is drowning in sex to the point where you lose track of the story line. Unfortunately, most people seem to err on the side of drowning an otherwise good story line in sex, which takes away from the story and insults both the author and the readers.
About smut: if this is what you're writing, please admit to yourself that you're doing so and don't try to disguise your works as stories with valid story lines, even if they're multi-chapter and have a vague sort of story line to them. Writing pure smut is effectively a free pass to disregard a lot of details because there's no real story line to it, and this category of writing mostly exists to give people a short-term pleasure high. A few very creative people have managed to write a viable story line which revolves around sex (I've read 3 very impressive examples of this, again in thousands), but the vast majority of smut stories literally lose any story line they may have had under the smut. And lastly, there's nothing wrong with writing about sex! Just don't disrespect otherwise good story lines by over-indulging in sex in them!
Valid stories: the story could be about nearly anything (an adventure, a mystery, a fantasy, or so on), and can build both characters and relationships, both falling in the category of "meaningful". This is also the difference between a viable and long-lasting relationship and one which isn't (because it's based on nothing but sex), which is why keeping the sex down is good. This is where people get to know each other, and results in some of what's called 'fluff', which normally doesn't detract from a story line because no one has a habit of going overboard on it. However, valid story lines also require a writer to use some semblance of logic in how things would play out, which is why some details are very much needed to build a good story:
i) Character body state: A dead body which has been reanimated can't have sex or reproduce. The hugest canon fallacy in this regard is the Monster High series, where animated corpses are all somehow capable of having children. Zombies (or mummies) no longer have the bodily functions (or, in many cases, the parts) to have sex, let alone reproduce, regardless of partner (a character like Neighthan can't viably exist, because the zombie parent couldn't have provided genetics to create him). This would also mean they can't age and can't feel physical pain. Vampires may have some seductive tendencies, but they're still risen corpses, which is why they have to 'turn' humans into vampires; they can't procreate otherwise. Because Monster High is already written that way, changing it won't work very well, but in other stories, it's usually fanfic writers who make the error out of a desire for smut. Vincent Valentine (FFVII) is a human who died and became undead before his body had deteriorated (he's neither alive nor a vampire, looks aside), so he also can't physically have sex or have children. If you want someone whose body is dead to somehow have kids, then find some other way to do it, because nature can't (and yes, there are often ways to do this, even if it means creating a method, which is why 'magic' is important, if it's done right).
ii) Changing character genders (gender-bending): Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's 'wrong' to gender-bend characters, but when you only gender-bend one character to make an otherwise gay relationship a straight one or the reverse, that's actually disturbing and shouldn't be done. If you think they would be compatible when they're the genders already assigned to them, then don't screw with their genders, either accept that you're okay with them having a relationship as they are or ditch the relationship. If you can think of a very, very good reason to change a single character's gender (some necessity why the character must be the opposite gender), then go ahead (I've seen a good example of this on AO3). If you want to gender-bend 80% or more of the characters, go ahead. If your reason for changing a character's gender is related to something like feminism, get a reality check and make more characters than just the lead male into a woman! Of course, if you want to show how hard it is for a woman to deal with the same things male leads have to (which will significantly change the story, because women STILL don't have anything like equality), then say so and preferably don't add relationships (not with the main character, anyway) to such a story, because otherwise, you screw your own point and just reinforce the stereotype that "women are all good once they have a man." Which, for the record, is one of the biggest fallacies I've come across in society.
iii) Inserting/creating gay relationships: Honestly, I don't care if you want to create LGBT characters or a gay relationship or two—Hell, I do it, too. But the reality is, maybe only about 5-10% of the population is actually LGBT, so regardless of how others around such a couple would react to it, there would only ever be one or two couples (main characters) fitting into this category. A school setting would have maybe 4-5 couples (half or more wouldn't be main characters) unless they're in a gay community to start with—a gay bar, a gay district in a town/city, a school in a gay part of a city, or something along that line. And that location needs to be stated as such so readers know this isn't actually the average part of town or whatever. Which means Hogwarts can't be 50% or more gay, unless you've done something to change the entire premise of what Hogwarts is (preferably something which actually makes sense, since the root premise for Hogwarts is standard het relationships).
Sadly, I used to think this was 'an awesome thing to do', but then I grew up. Don't go overboard creating excess gay relationships. In other words, if Harry Potter (and his partner) is notably gay, then leave Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger as het, even if they aren't with each other. Or, if both Harry and Hermione (and their partners) are gay, then most of the rest of the well-known cast would be straight. In fact, if you want to emphasize difficulties the LGBT community has to deal with on a day-to-day basis, then keeping the number of these kinds of relationships down is the only actual way to make the point, as 90% of what they deal with is due to being such a small minority. They wouldn't have nearly the problems if every second person fell under the LGBT banner. And please refer back to topic 1) i) on another reason you shouldn't just randomly make nearly every (or every) character gay when writing a valid, meaningful story.
Note: The Yu-Gi-Oh! GX story on my profile was one I found on FFN, copied, re-wrote, and posted many years ago, when I still thought this was okay, and was borrowed from someone else (with his permission) who had written it very, very poorly (language use-wise). As such, I was just trying to fix a lot of those errors and didn't realize at the time that this was also one. The only two reasons I haven't taken that story down yet are: the author of the original is gone, as is his original story (so this one is effectively a tribute), and there are enough people who like it for me to just not bother removing it. Anything I've written since has had only 2, maybe 3, gay relationships at most, or really no relationships at all, of any kind. I'm even thinking of doing a re-write of this the way I would actually do it if I wasn't following someone else's base story line so people can compare the two, but I haven't decided on that, yet.
6) The excessively poor language skills of 'writers' on FFN (or AO3, or other similar sites): It's disturbing to note how non-native English speakers often know English better than so-called native English speakers, and it's worse to realize that native English speakers generally loathe being corrected in spelling and grammar, let alone things like logic and plot holes in their stories. After all, this site is supposed to help writers improve their ability, not keep it the same. It's a serious peeve of mine that I can see a story with a summary that looks good, but I can't read the bloody thing because the language is so damned bad, yet all those same people who write crap expect to post here and get kudos for their crap, which better belongs in a garbage bin or a toilet bowl. While some of this happens with other languages as well, generally those of other countries/languages have a better grasp of both their own language and ours if they're posting in English. So sad. And so peeve.
On the other hand, I've both found some people who liked to improve their writing and seen some really good writers on here, too, so thanks to all those of you who actually know proper language or want to improve! :D
End of Major Pet Peeves section! Congratulations if you made it this far. Other than adding examples where needed, I think all my peeves are listed (and explained) now.
If you support gay marriage and want to show it, paste this into your profile:
1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, liposuction, and air conditioning.
2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Dattebayo Devon (12)