-there is no shame in being introduced to mytholgy from something like percy jackson, epic the musical or anything like that, but keep in mind that actual myths are going to be VERY different from modern retellings

-the myth of medusa you probably know (her being a victim of poseidon and being cursed by athena) isn't 100% accurate to GREEK mythology (look up ovid)

-there is no version of persephone's abduction in which persephone willingly stays with hades, that's a tumblr invention (look up homeric hymn to demeter)

-as much as i would like it, no, cerberus' name does not mean "spot" (probably a misunderstanding from this wikipedia article)

-zeus isn't the only god who does terrible things to women, your fav male god probably has done the same

-on that note, your fav greek hero has probably done some heinous shit as well

-gods are more complicated than simply being "god of [insert thing]", many titles overlap between gods and some may even change depending on where they were worshipped

-also, apollo and artemis being the gods of the sun and the moon isn't 100% accurate, their main aspects as deities originally were music and the hunt

-titans and gods aren't two wholly different concepts, titan is just the word used to decribe the generation of gods before the olympians

-hector isn't the villain some people make him out to be

-hephaestus WAS married to aphrodite. they divorced. yes, divorce was a thing in ancient greece. hephaestus' wife is aglaia

-ancient greek society didn't have the same concepts of sexuality that we have now, it's incorrect to describe virgin goddesses like artemis and athena as lesbians, BUT it's also not wholly accurate to describe them as aromantic/asexual, it's more complex than that

-you can never fully understand certain myths if you don't understand the societal context in which they were told

-myths have lots and lots of retellings, there isn't one singular "canon", but we can try to distinguish between older and newer versions and bewteen greek and roman versions

-most of what you know about sparta is probably incorrect

-reading/waching retellings is not a substitute to reading the original myths, read the iliad! read the odyssey! i know they may seem intimidating, but they're much more entertaining than you may think

According to traditional Armenian belief, Grox (the writer) is a spirit who records a person's deeds during their lifetime, determining the purity of their soul. This concept may be linked to Tir, the god of writing and literature in Armenian mythology. In some interpretations, it was believed that anyone whose name Tir wrote in his notebook would die. This is where the curse "may the writer take you" originates.

During the Christian era, Grox was mistakenly represented as a Christian spirit who no longer recorded human deeds but instead determined each person's fate, inscribing it on their foreheads. Over time, Grox came to be depicted as an evil spirit, sometimes identified with Satan. Thus, the curse "get lost in Grox’s embrace," which originally signified death, took on a more negative connotation. However, this was not originally characteristic of Grox in Armenian traditional beliefs.

"Երանի գրողին, որ տարավ քեզ:"

I finished reading the script for the boy. I thought it’d be fun to share some of the main differences between the script and the movie, mainly because I find the differences between the character’s personalities interesting, as they affect the construction of the environment in the story. 

I. Naming and environment construction

The original name was In a dark place and not The boy. I believe referring to Greta’s (whose name in the script is Gerti) mental state when she arrives at the manor since she is struggling with deep negative emotions as much as she tries to escape them. As the story progresses, it diverts from her mental state to the manor and its creepy aura. 

The Heelshire’s manor (as described in the script) is an old, two-story building with barred windows that almost give the impression of lifeless eyes peering out from behind large, leafy trees. (Notice how the author is hinting that being observed will be a big part of the story).

The house also has narrow halls, which exposes that Brahms world behind the walls isn’t tight. The Heelshire build the mansion so that there would be enough space behind the walls for him to move around freely, to the cost of of taking space off from the indoors.

II. The Characters

Greta is more relatable in the script than she ever was in the movie. She isn’t overly intelligent or brave but holds a deep sense of loyalty and family-oriented feelings. Additionally, Greta has a better-developed personality. We get to know how she responds to being frightened in a way that feels a lot creepier and reasonable. 

Despite the above, I still think the movie! Greta captured the essentials perfectly fine, and that’s pretty great.

A relevant clarification when adapting a script to the screen is that sometimes, writers tend to go wild with creativity without considering the requirable needs to carry out things as they imagined them (there are limits such as the budget). Despite this, I think the production team and Director William Brent Bell archived a great adaptation. 

Nonetheless, it would have been nice if they included little details to contribute the essence of fear once we reached the plot twist at the end, such as the scene where Brahms gifts Greta a diamond necklace.  

II.I ––GRETA EVANS

Let’s see the main differences, shall we? First, in the script, Greta is a blond, skinny girl who likes spontaneity and adventure; therefore, struggles following Brahms daily tight agenda.

Once she’s convinced that Brahms spirit is inside the doll, we can see her opening up about it by expressing her thoughts to the doll:

She doesn’t like routines but does her job anyways.

Another thing that contributes to the story terrifying atmosphere and therefore, that affects Greta’s character directly is the fact that the Heelshire left everything they own to Greta. The money, the house, their proprieties across England, everything. She finds the “Last Will” papers and realizes that they aren’t coming back and accepts it. In her mind, the Heelshire chose her to take care of their son for a reason: she asked for something like this to happen, for her life to have meaning. The girl gives a damn about how rich she is now, she just cares about the little child she thinks is living in the doll. She’s too selfless for her own good.

She tells him what’s the deal with her ex, how he was charming and loving but when angry he mistreated her. She tells him one time after he beat her up and she ended up at the hospital she found out about her pregnancy and wisely decided not to have the baby. Greta then affirms that ever since that horrible experience she’s been praying for a sigh that life wasn’t so small; and we have this beautiful and disturbing dialogue:

All in all, she was rather disturbed and sad and the seemingly haunted doll helped her to put her life together. This is what gives the plot wist even more emotional weight.

II. II –– THE DELIVERY BOY

*Deep sigh* Well, he doesn’t really have many changes in his personality or development. Script!Malcom is… more Malcom, if you know what I mean. Lame jokes that make him seem adorable, he is kinder, understanding and loving towards Greta. He and Greta did fuck in the script lol poor Brahms. He threw a tantrum the next morning but I’m sure the little bitch jerked off to watching them making love.

Anyway, one thing that does changes is that script!Malcom puts up with Brahms shit in a more direct way. He had his shirt stolen and half-dead rats put on the glove compartment of his car. Additionally, he had to put up with Greta’s stubbornness and reluctance of leaving the house once things got more and more creepy. In the script is evident that he got stuck in the crossing fire, while in the movie he’s just strictly Greta’s love interest and her assistant in the final battle.

II.III –– Brahms Heelshire 

Let’s take a look at the badass entrance he had on the script please:

Brahms. Mother fucking bastard son of a bitch. This little spoiled bastard. Script!Brahms is way more violent, forceful and stinkier than movie!Brahms. He isn’t burn and therefore he’s less aware of the “actions have consequences” phrase. You’ll see, this might be just my personal take but I think that, since in the movie he got trapped in the fire, Brahms has one clear and only example that bad things happen to you when your actions are wicked and that could be a point to use in favor to pursuit future positive character development.

Anyway, let’s go on.

In my opinion movie!Brahms is less scarier because he feels a little bit more human. He’s soft where script!Brahms is rude and violent. Script!Brahms was completely thought to be a nasty, crazy man. Additionally, he is way meaner. I’ll give you a few examples:

In the scene were Greta showers and he takes her dress and clothes, movie!Brahms leaves the towel for Greta to cover, since he took everything else, while script!Brahms took everything, forcing her to walk naked to her room –presumably watching her– and take the bed sheets to cover herself.

In the attic scene, movie!Brahms waits until Greta is up to close the stairs, while script!Brahms doesn’t, he simply yeets her up along with the stairs.

In the scene of the peanut butter jelly sandwich outside her door, movie!Brahms does it as in “Don’t be scared of me, I mean no harm, just follow the rules” it’s played as an attentive gesture reinforced by the quote “it’s your favorite” but script!Brahms just scared the living shit out of her so hard that Greta locked herself in her bedroom for an entire day. Can you imagine being locked in a room for a whole fucking day without eating? And then the sandwich is left there as in “I have to be careful that you don’t die of starvation”. Not a word spoken.

And please don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that movie!Brahms is a sugar cube, he’s not. He is still a twisted and highly dangerous man, I’m just saying he’s not as evil as his script counterpart is. Movie!Brahms somehow makes you feel sympathy, if even a little. Of course there’s also the damn cute head tilt. God, *rises fist* it makes me weak I swear

In the final scene, after Cole breaks the bloody doll movie!Brahms bursts trough the wall and he’s fucking livid. This man has invaded his home, tried to take away the object of is affections and on the top of that destroyed the doll he used to interact with world. Brahms had all the motives to be angry at Cole –that doesn’t justify that he killed him, of course, I’m just saying that his anger was valid– but even in his rage he didn’t purposely inflict harm on Greta.

Movie!Brahms grabs her from behind in a dominant way that seems more desperate for taking her out of the living room and / or having her close to him, rather than hurting her. He’s a little rough due to the sudden emotional outburst, but it’s not intended. 

Now, script Brahms is a totally different story. He comes out though the secret door in the clock placed on the living room –this is cooler in my opinion, the clock having a secret door to the inside of the walls and everything– and lashes out, fuming, completely lost in rage and straight up objectifies Greta, claiming her as his own.

Then he proceeds to beat up Malcom with the cricket bat knocking him unconscious, afterwards, he violently grabs Greta by her hair and starts pulling her with him inside the wall. This shit is fucking terrifying, yo. she’s crying begging him and screaming and he does nothing but keep pulling. Script!Brahms gives two fucks if he’s hurting her or not.

Right after the above he stabs Cole in the chest with the knife. It’s not long before Malcom hits him in the head and tells Greta to run. They both do so but when Brahms is back to his feet he chases Greta to the kitchen and everything, from the look on his eyes to his body language says: “I’m going to take you. Don’t care if I need to hurt you to do so. I don’t care. I just will do it because I’m angry.”

However, she manages to avoid him and she and Malcom end up inside the walls, discovering his room, like in the movie. Here he has more porn magazines aside form the pages glued to his bed-wall. He has several. The room aside that is the same. The letter however, says: The girl is your doll now, take care of her and show her your loving side” Here the Heelshires are helping reinforce the idea that she is an object to be own and therefore he can treat her like so and not like a human being.

Now, does script!Brahms really has a ‘loving side’? I think he does. No person is pure good or evil, and Brahms isn’t the exception. Before his true identity is reveled he makes Greta a gift; he gives her a necklace and in my opinion it wasn’t a ‘just-one-time’ kinda situation. I think he did things like that for her periodically because as I’ve seen to be addressed before, Brahms idea of conquering a woman’s heart is terribly old-fashioned and he was probably doing that as a way of courting her.

This implies that script!Brahms loses himself in the rage he feels fully and completely to the point he doesn’t even care if he hurts Greta, which makes more accurate that he killed Emily. I think that even when this is a shared feature he has with his movie counterpart, in the movie is not shown as raw.

Another thing that I would like to draw your attention to is the fact that movie!Brahms uses his child voice when he first come out of the wall while calling Greta. I think that –aside the ‘it’s a horror movie it was made like that so it would be creepy’– he did so because a child’s voice would probably be more familiar to Greta, and therefore, hopefully she wouldn’t be as afraid.

Now, another difference is that Script!Brahms is more manipulative. In the scene where Greta manages to escape the house he reverts to little boy voice and drags Malcolm unconscious body to the doorway as he says “He is hurt, he needs your help. Come back” because he spied Greta’s conversations on the phone with her sister, and knows her. He knows she has a strong sense of family and friendship, he knows she is loyal, he knows she’s good, he knows she will try to help.

But Greta is smart and waits. Then, upon seeing it didn’t work he lashes out again, and we have the dialogue: “if you leave I’ll kill him, I’ll kill him just like the other one” which clarifies that he didn’t meant the others as in ‘the other nannies’ as many people on the fandom believe. He was just talking about Cole but the movie got this wrong, I suppose. Or maybe movie!Brahms felt responsible for his parents suicide? He behaves like a child but he’s an adult capable of thinking and internalizing what he feels so it might be a possibility, but a very unlikely one.

Script!Brahms then pleads in his child-like voice: “Don’t leave me” Nothing. Greta doesn’t come back. “I’ll be good, I will” he reassures but you can’t believe him due to the shit-show he just up Greta through literal minutes ago.

Meanwhile, when movie!Brahms says this is, in a way, is less terrifying since he wasn’t violent directly and purposely towards Greta. It is mentioned in the script that when Brahms calls her he does so like a person who’s calling for their pet, which is awfully descriptive as how he sees her.  The calling in the movie seems more desperate to me, more as if he really needs her to stay, and it doesn’t really sounds like a man calling for a pet to me, but a child calling his mom. And I sincerely don’t know which is creepier.

Logic: Characters, just like real people, are mallable. There is typically very little that's so truly, heinously out of character that you absolutely cannot make it work under any circumstance. In addition, most fans are also willing to accept characterization stretches if it makes the fic work. Yeah, we all know the villain and the hero wouldn't cuddle for warmth in canon. But if they did do that, how would they do it?

What counts is often not so much 'would the character do this?' and more 'if the character did do this, how would they do it?' If you get 'how' part right, your readers will probably be willing to buy the rest, because it will still feel like their favourite character. But if it doesn't feel like the character anymore, why are they even reading the fic?

But it was along the lines of "instead of asking whether something is out of character, ask 'what would it take for this character to do this'"

— but the story has other plans.

Some characters don’t just make mistakes.

They misread the story they’ve been written into.

They think it’s a romance.

But it’s a tragedy.

They think they’re chosen.

But they’re someone else’s warning.

They think they’re the hero.

But they never stood a chance.

That gap — between what they believe and what the story demands —

that’s where the tension lives.

🧠 Why It Hurts

A character’s arc isn’t just what happens to them.

It’s what they think is happening — and how wrong they are.

Their misreading isn’t a flaw. It’s the point.

It creates:

• Irony (we see it coming, even if they don’t)

• Heartbreak (they believe it completely)

• Structure (the plot is shaped by their misunderstanding)

This isn’t unreliable narration.

It’s internal logic that’s emotionally sound — just fatally misaligned with the world they’re in.

🧱 Examples in Action

She thinks this is the chapter where they forgive her.

But it’s the one where they walk away.

He thinks the crown means victory.

But every step toward it costs him something he can’t replace.

They think silence protects.

But it leaves more broken than they know.

✍️ How to Write It

1. Give them a belief that feels safe.

Let them think they understand the rules.

Let them trust the arc they think they’re in.

2. Show the cracks early.

Let the audience see what they don’t.

Let us hope they’re right. Let us dread that they’re not.

3. Delay the collapse.

The tragedy isn’t that they fall.

It’s that they believe — right up to the edge.

4. Let the genre turn against them.

If they think it’s a love story, end in silence.

If they think they’re the hero, let the world cast them as the threat.

💥 Bonus: Flip It

Some characters see the story clearly — and survive because of it.

They know the rules.

They see the trap.

They walk the genre like a battlefield.

But those are stories about clarity.

This is about faith — misplaced, stubborn, human faith.

SUSPECTS

In mystery writing, a suspect is someone believed to have committed a crime, but they are not necessarily the villain. They are side characters who help drive the story forward, adding layers of intrigue and misdirection.

For example, if someone is suspected of murder or kidnapping, the protagonist must investigate them thoroughly before proving—beyond a reasonable doubt—whether they are guilty or not. A rushed or baseless arrest isn't just unrealistic; it can be a sign of police brutality or judicial incompetence, which can actually serve as an interesting plot element.

Example Scenario:

An officer is called to reinvestigate a crime and discovers that his close friend—also an officer—was originally in charge of the case. As he digs deeper, he realizes that his friend knowingly arrested the wrong person and kept quiet to protect his reputation.

In this setup, the officer’s friend initially appears trustworthy, but over time, subtle clues and contradictions make readers question whether he might be the true perpetrator. To make this work, other suspects must be introduced to divert suspicion, keeping readers engaged and unsure of who to trust.

RED HERRING

Red herrings are one of the most effective tools in mystery writing because they create tension and misdirection. A red herring is a suspect who appears to be the villain—convincingly so—only to be proven innocent later on.

To break it down:

Character A = A suspect with some evidence against them.

Character B = A red herring suspect who seems guilty but isn’t.

Character C = The true villain, who remains hidden until the climax.

Example Scenario:

The protagonist is investigating Characters A and B in connection to a crime. He gathers strong evidence that suggests B is a false witness who misled the authorities. Readers are convinced that B must be guilty.

But then, as the protagonist keeps digging, he realizes something is missing. The real mastermind—Character C—is still in the shadows, pulling the strings. However, there’s barely any evidence against C, making it a challenge for both the protagonist and the reader to uncover the truth.

A good mystery balances evidence, misdirection, and suspense to keep the audience engaged. Sometimes, the red herring may know the villain but refuse to reveal them for personal reasons. Other times, they were just a pawn, unknowingly working for the real culprit.

The Importance of Personal Stakes

A mystery shouldn’t rely solely on the crime itself—personal stakes keep readers emotionally invested.

Consider adding:

Threats against the protagonist.

Superstitions, like an abandoned building people warn them to avoid.

A personal connection to the victim.

For instance, if the protagonist is investigating a case that involves their missing sibling, the emotional weight of the story increases. Readers will care not just about solving the mystery but about the character’s personal journey as well.

Bonus: The Role of Clues

Clues are essential pieces of evidence that help the protagonist solve the mystery. They can take many forms, from physical objects to subtle inconsistencies in alibis.

Examples of Clues:

Objects: Keys, pictures, old toys, rings, SIM cards, ATM receipts.

Technology: Forgotten emails, deleted messages, CCTV footage.

Documents: Journals, diaries, favorite books, old letters.

Locations: Hidden compartments, locked rooms, abandoned offices.

A well-placed clue, hidden in plain sight, can make a mystery all the more rewarding when the reader looks back and realizes it was there all along.

Next Week’s Topic:

It includes:

My transcript of the movie (more on that here)

Audio recordings of the movie

A PDF of the book

The full audiobook

A copy of Andy Weir's doc on Eridians

A draft of the screenplay for the film from 2022

An audio recording of the director's commentary

The audiobook and audio recordings all have their properties programmed so they (should) work just like songs with a track number, album cover, artist, and so on if you download them.

There are two audios of the movie, one is the entire film untouched and one is that same audio cut up and broken down into separate scenes for convenience.

Additionally, there are two versions of the transcript, one with time stamps that match the audio and one without. The time stamps (+ their titles from the audio) are outlined in that version, so if you double-click on that tab or click "show outline," they'll all show up and you can pick a specific scene.