StarryEyed

but one of the quibbles i have with them is faramir's arc. in the books, faramir refuses to take the ring. in fact, he refuses to even know what object the item of power is. he tells frodo not to tell him! "not were gondor in ruins and i alone could save it, would i use this thing!" he studied with gandalf for years and years. he KNOWS objects of dark power corrupt.

and in the commentary for the LOTR movies, the writing cast (Philipa Boyens, specifically, I think?) talks about the change to have Faramir try to take Frodo to Gondor so they can use the object of power. she says that they've built the ring up for all the prior running time, to convey to the audience how powerful it is, and that Faramir comes along and "strips the ring of all its power."

i have been haunted by the Almost Getting It for years. Frodo's encounter with Faramir is important because of that! Faramir has so many reasons to succumb and rationalize trying to use the ring, and he says no. Frodo desperately needs that hope, that it CAN be done, at that specific moment. he's also been separated from the group charged with getting him to Mordor because of betrayal, and now only has Sam and Gollum. Faramir's refusal to take him off course or take the ring also gives Frodo hope that he still has support from the world around him, and that not all men have fallen and become lost already.

Mr Bingley: Oh my gosh, that's wonderful! When did Elizabeth tell you this?

Mr Darcy: When I proposed to her.

Mr Bingley: ...

Mr Darcy: ...

Mr Bingley: You proposed to the sister of the woman you said I shouldn't marry because of her family's unsuitability?

Mr Darcy: If it helps... she said no

1. The FBI's Famous Cases & Criminals archive (fbi.gov/history/famous-cases) has detailed breakdowns of real fraud cases, Ponzi schemes, and confidence operations. The language they use is clinical and precise, which is perfect for getting the procedural details right.

2. The FTC Consumer Sentinel Network publishes annual reports on the most common fraud tactics in the US. Great for understanding how modern scams actually work and what makes people fall for them.

3. The Smithsonian's American Art Museum has a free digital collection of forgery case studies. If your character forges documents or art, this is gold.

4. Court Listener (courtlistener.com) is a free legal database where you can read actual court transcripts from fraud trials. Want to know how a real con artist talks under oath? This is where you find out.

5. The Internet Archive's collection of old newspaper crime sections. Search for "confidence man" or "swindle" in papers from the 1920s through 1960s and you'll find incredible real stories that would feel too dramatic for fiction.

Bonus: The Psychology of Fraud section on the Association for Psychological Science website has accessible articles about why people trust, how deception works cognitively, and what makes someone a convincing liar. Essential reading if you want your con artist characters to feel psychologically real.

”Robin would have loved this case… where is he?” 🥺🥺🥺

DC CROSSOVER WEEK 2026 PROMPTS

TUMBLR | ASKBOX | FAQ

Posting: August 24th — 30th

Tags: #dccrossoverweek and #dccrossoverweek2026

but miscommunication is a fucking incredible plot device, it just needs to be used well. because yeah, maybe it could be resolved with a single hey i just wanted to check in about what you said text.

but why isn't she texting that, actually. what shape do her hands make around the phone. does she open and close the messaging app, does she just doomscroll. maybe she can't even really figure out why she's upset - what she heard broke her heart. too much is happening in her life and she decides it's not her fucking job to constantly fucking be the hey just checking in friend. why can't they do it, for fucking once, she is always fixing things first. she is working with her therapist on her fawn response. and fuck them, honestly.

and they don't know she misunderstood, only that she pulled away suddenly. and the thing is that they didn't realize how familiar she was, how wonderful - and she's suddenly dropped them now, which makes sense, because they're a terrible person. everyone does this, right? once other people see how they really are - a void of a person - they are left alone again. so they don't text, either. they leave the phone at home while they go get drunk again. lights and music and dancing, skating over the frozen lake of their own heart, avoiding it. if they look too hard at it, fuck they miss her, she was the only fucking thing they have left. but it's not fair to her. she's setting a boundary, they need to respect it.

and the distance like a banner between them. her anger at their happy-go-lucky instagram stories; because of course they're out there fucking partying as if she wasn't ever important. their spiral that is the same spiral it always is, self-destructive and vapid, their heart empty in her absence. she pulls back further, they lash out - fucking stay away. neither one comes to their shared friend's birthday. and it's fine, right, people grow apart from each other, that's adulthood. but when she talks to her therapist she finds herself saying yeah, i could talk to them about it, but, like, it's been months. and they stare at her picture and type and retype the same message that they never send: where are you. what have i done. but they leave her alone, because they think it's what she wants.

this is a real thing that happens; and when it happens, it fucking sucks. in the real world, conversations are often not what they could be; they are often weird and painful and messy. we try to talk to the other person, but they're too stressed out to listen. we both try to fix things, but the hurt has just been too great, and it's never the same, no matter the length of the apology. we grow apart. or both people keep trying, but they're just too different (or too much the same), too much keeps getting in the way, they just end up arguing. the conversation was supposed to be small, it ends up spiraling into a massive and bitter breakup. the conversation was supposed to fix the friendship, but it just makes both people realize i don't really get along with you the way i once did.

in romeo and juliet, a pretty famous series of communication errors keep happening. obviously this is not because his writing is lazy. the lack of communication causes and exposes the tragedy. love is about two people trying to reach each other across an impossible barrier. the place where language can't touch - no matter how much i write about it, i will never be able to show you truly what i am feeling - like trying to name which sounds "feel" green. i cannot put you into my body.

barriers to communication are fucking interesting. is it because of the characters' shared history or because they don't have history? is it a generational thing. is it because they've actually talked about it too much, and there's nothing left that can even be said on the subject. is it because he is too attached to tradition, and she has fully forgotten her home country. are they both avoidant, both anxious? does one person accidentally trigger the other; is the other person not practiced enough to even talk about the trauma that surfaced? does one person lie; is another one being manipulative? is one person hell-bent on taking even neutral things personally, does the other person feel purposefully misunderstood and disoriented. maybe one of them just comes from a culture where interrupting is seen as rude, whereas the other learned crosstalk was a form of active listening - now neither feels heard, even though both actually are listening. hell, sometimes what isn't said shows us the real shape of the relationship hanging between them.