#auntarctica asks

So, I'm in the minority camp that thinks Ninja Theory did kind of an interesting thing when they opted to switch storylines and birth order (for whatever that's worth with identical twins) between Dante and Vergil in the reboot.

I know a lot of people hate the idea of Vergil being the "little brother" in the equation and thought it made no sense and was a meaningless change, and I get where they're coming from, because it probably was - what I mean is, it likely wasn't intentional on NT's part, for any other reason than an attempt to instead make Dante the "cool older brother" and to differentiate themselves in one more way from OG DMC.

But what's interesting about both the shift in birth order and the storyline swap is that rather than undermining their innate characters, it actually reinforced them, and proved that no matter the formative circumstances, Dante will act like Dante and Vergil will act like Vergil:

Dante, whether he's the one protected by Eva or disenfranchised from society and family, will become secretly wounded, insouciant, irreverent, sardonic, flippant and cynical. He will be in denial about the true danger posed by Mundus, and determined to avoid his father's legacy, but reluctantly protect humanity when called upon - though not for free, of course. The toilets need flushing.

Vergil, whether he comes from rubble or privilege, will always be ambitious, idealistic striving, driven, calculating but rash, with the overconfidence of youth and a reach exceeding his grasp. He will have an Icarusian fall, and ultimately a phoenix-like redemption. (We presume a DmC sequel would/have follow(ed) the same reconciliation trajectory, because what else would make sense/serve the story?)

It also rather neatly answers and dovetails with the retroactive rhetorical question classic Vergil asks himself at the top of the Qliphoth, whether things would have been different if he'd had Dante's life, and Dante had his.

And the answer we already have from reboot is, no, not really. The outcome could only have been different if the individuals involved were totally different people - but their core character traits, I think, stay true and remain intact in both versions.

Still, obviously there are variations in character within those greater macro aspects, things that make the expression of these personality traits different, which we can attribute to formative experience, and the swapped backstory.

For instance, Classic Dante hides his profound psychological damage by being a party guy and a rock n' roll rodeo clown whereas DmC Dante wears his inside out; we can see his sullen punk-rock defensiveness, his bitterness, and we do not doubt his damage for a minute. Being the disenfranchised one has left its mark on him, and he has no ability or willingness to mask his trauma. Both keep others at arms' length, but ironically, ReDante actually is more receptive to intimacy and connection, possibly because he doesn't have a false front, or a whole circus-like façade, just a default defensive stance he holds as a last resort, after being embattled his entire life. He has been given the classic Vergil backstory, and while he becomes similarly defensive and embittered, he reacts like Dante, not classic Vergil.

Neither Dante is ever canonically shown as having any particular interest in humans or humanity as a whole, so much as a keen interest in killing demons (which is why the ending fraternal conflict of reboot rings so false, non sequitur and hollow). Both shrug off human collateral damage, and if classic Dante is ever bothered by the mass casualties incurred in the raising of the Qliphoth, he never mentions it as he trips over their bodies to run to his brother. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Of the two, I think Vergil is the more different, with more personality contrast between interpretations - though his core traits remain: curiosity, intrepidity, enthusiasm, perfectionism, impulsivity, absolutism. With the strife removed from his life, Vergil is able to be emotionally open, to express his love for his brother, and his ambition comes from a proactive place instead of a reactive one.

However, like Dante, all his youthful flaws remain intact. He will always be the one who falls - and Dante will always be the one who fails to act at the crucial moment. The tragedy is thus complete.

The greatest difference, I think, is that classic Vergil has even less use for humans than Dante, whereas ReVergil is arguably the only one who actually has any appreciation for humanity as a class (even if he regards them as lesser beings) - which actually puts him more in line with classic Sparda, ironically, than anyone else. Reboot Sparda is never shown as having any particular interest in humans or their fate, and he and Eva are essentially depicted as just hiding out in the human world like it's witness protection.

Hey, anon!

General stuff first:

Really interesting question. Thank you for asking - you made me think.

So maybe I'm a strange case, but I think maybe other inveterate writers can relate to this. Reading was autodidactic for me at a very early age, and I read absolutely voraciously as a child - and I liked to really immerse. The bigger the book, the better. I used to actually choose books at the bookstore or library based on their thickness, because I went through them so fast.

I'm guessing you did too :)

I was allowed to read whatever I wanted, so in turn, I read everything: my PBS-loving grandmother's adult historical fiction, my mom''s espionage potboilers, my dad's Hemingway, Kesey, Bradbury and Orwell, plus his pulp detective novels, golden-age sci-fi, war classics, noir, and horror novels and anthologies; my Finnish grandmother's old stack of Barbara Cartland romances and battered copy of Gone with the Wind, all the classics from lit classes, and some of what I would call "old-school" young adult books - ones that were written across at kids by former kids, with an empathy toward a developing mind, taking the issues of childhood and adolescence seriously and intelligently, instead of thinly-veiled books about teenagers for adults who need to escape to a fictional "simpler time" in their lives and don't want to think too hard.

When I found a book that resonated with me, I would often reread it over and over, and I think that was really formative, because with each pass I was internalizing it and subconsciously analyzing what it was that made me like it so much. And also what I didn't, and thought could be done better.

Oddly, one of the book series that resonated with me intensely was L.M. Montgomery's lesser-known Emily series. This is the same author who wrote Anne of Green Gables, but she didn't personally relate to Anne. Emily, the author's true avatar, was essentially the anti-Anne; darker, more philosophical, more proto-feminist, more interested in a writing career than a family, aware of the realities of being a woman writer in her time period.

I have lost count of how many times I read that trilogy from age 12-15. And I guarantee it was the thing that made me say, "You should be a writer, too."

When I started writing fiction in earnest as an adolescent, I largely stopped reading fiction as recreation.

This isn't to say I don't read at all - I read a lot of articles, think pieces, Emerson essays, Essays from the Stoics, essays from friends. Stuff that turns my gears.

But reading takes up a tremendous amount of time, and while I know this runs contrary to every piece of advice generally served up to the public by writers - the truth is that you only have so much life in the can to write with, and the words you manage to get out during that time is all you'll ever get to say, or give to the world.

I'm actually ashamed to say I almost never read fanfiction, because I'm always busy writing what I'd most want to read.

(However, given the sad state of feedback/reciprocity in modern fandom, lately I've been making an effort to change that. I'm reading, and I'm commenting - being the change I'd like to see.)

So, with the understanding that I heavily front-loaded/kindermaxxed my lifetime of reading, and that most of my recs will be pretty classic stuff, here's some actual answers to your questions:

Favorite genres:

My absolute favorite genre is what would be called "general fiction", sometimes known as "hybrid fiction" these days. That's essentially a book that can be about any subject under the sun, including genre subjects, but is written in a more literary rather than genre style, and also is not subject to genre lengths or conventions.

(Not to be confused with 'literary', which is its own genre.)

A lot - probably most - historical fiction falls under this category, but you can also find my other favorite sub genres: noir, horror, and some types of sci-fi.

Favorite authors:

E.M. Forster - particularly A Room with a View and Maurice

L.M. Montgomery - (as mentioned above) The Emily Trilogy

Elmore Leonard - anything by

Raymond Chandler - anything by

John Bellairs - written for kids, but with dark magic, noir, horror, ripping good yarns, adult themes, and a way of drawing fascinating characters in very few strokes, while evoking the historically-mysterious atmosphere of the Great Lakes region of America during the 30s, 40s and 50s. I am partial to the Rose-Rita and Anthony Monday books, personally, and the fact that Bellairs often had Edward Gorey as an illustrator Books I liked a lot (off the top of my head) :

The Short-Timers - Gustav Hasford

In a Lonely Place - Dorothy B. Hughes (one of the forgotten female giants of noir writing, her novel about a sociopath Dix Steele is seminal)

Nightmare Alley - William Lindsay Gresham

I'm aware that most of these don't really reflect what I personally write so much as inform execution, aesthetic and prose sensibilities, but what kind of comes out in the wash is that I very much like books that are able to create a lushness of style and setting and character depth and immersive intimacy using poetic language, while still remaining extremely readable.

I will add:

What I do read is the book drafts of author friends, and actually, pretty much anybody who sends me a fanfic or any piece of writing asking for encouragement or feedback. I will read that, absolutely.

On a more personal note:

I literally just wrote a post about The Vicious Pet and the massive albatross its half-finished state is to my psyche. I had the second half all mapped out, but I've been too removed from the lore and canon to really remember or recreate what I had planned for the second half. When the MGS3 remake drops, I'm hoping a replay will reboot my brain chemistry and knock my memory back into the headspace necessary to finish it.

(I know most authors don't finish their abandoned fics, but as evidence that I am built different, I will point at the long-form MGS fic Redux, which Greekhoop and I came back and finished after literal years. We were pretty smug about it.)

Thank you so much for all your kind words and support. Nothing means more than when someone's fandom is your writing itself, and not just the fandoms you write for.

I will use your kind gift of words to write more words for you.

(By the way, somehow I missed this ask whenever you sent it, and all I can blame for that that I'm one of those old skool weirdos who went from LJ and FF.net straight to Ao3 and somehow completely missed the Tumblr revolution when it happened and even now I'm still kind of figuring out how this site works. So I'm really sorry -I hope my answer is still evergreen enough to be interesting.

Let me know if you want to beta-read my novel :)