• Member Since 15th Apr, 2012
  • offline last seen Yesterday

bookplayer


Twilight floated a second fritter up to her mouth when she realized the first was gone. “What is in these things?” “Mostly love. Love ‘n about three sticks of butter.”

More Blog Posts545

  • 222 weeks
    Holiday Wishes

    Merry Christmas to all my friends here.

    And to those who have read Sun and Hearth (or who don't intend to, or those who don't mind spoilers), a Hearth's Warming gift:

    Read More

    11 comments · 1,574 views
  • 230 weeks
    Blast from the Past: Now 100% Less Likely to Get Me In Trouble

    Hey, some of you guys remember that thing I did a long time ago, where I wrote up 50 questions about headcanon and suggested people answer them on their blogs, and then, like, everyone on the site wanted to do it, and then the site mods sent me nice but stern messages suggesting I cut that shit out because it was spamming people's feeds?

    Read More

    12 comments · 1,843 views
  • 232 weeks
    Full Circle

    Wanderer D posted a touching retrospective of his time in fandom, and that made me remember the very first I ever heard of the show.

    (Potential implied spoilers but maybe not? below.)

    Read More

    22 comments · 1,734 views
  • 235 weeks
    Sun and Hearth is complete, plus post-update blog

    If you've been waiting for a complete tag before you read it, or are looking for a novel to start reading this weekend, Sun and Hearth is now finished and posted.

    Read More

    19 comments · 1,571 views
  • 236 weeks
    Sun and Hearth Post-Update Blog: Chapter 20 - Judgement

    Post-update blog for the penultimate chapter of Sun and Hearth. Last chapter and epilogue go up tomorrow.

    Chapter 20 - Judgement is up now. Spoilers below the break.

    Read More

    6 comments · 704 views
Mar
11th
2013

The intangible character in a romance. · 10:48pm Mar 11th, 2013

First, I know there are some new folks reading this. I blog a lot, both in terms of number of blogs (my average right now is about three to four a week) and sometimes in terms of length. I don’t claim to be an expert on anything, no matter how scholarly my blogs might sound. They’re all just my opinions, and you should feel free to disagree. I just explain how I see things.

Anyway, on to the essay!


In a good romance fic, there’s an intangible character. The character doesn’t actually exist, none of the other characters see them or hear them. But it’s literally the most important character in a ship fic.

That character is the relationship itself.

Look at it this way: You could write a romance fic where two characters who are in love break up, find new partners, and seem perfectly happy, and it could still be bittersweet because the relationship, the third main character, failed. A romance fic begins when the relationship appears (even if it’s only one side of the relationship.) And it ends when whatever issues the relationship has had to deal with are over.

Now, I find this to be an interesting way of looking at things. Each different relationship has its own character traits. They have to be realistic and interesting, and you have to show them to the readers to make them care about the relationship. People will like some relationship and dislike others, and if you think of the characters of the ships you like or dislike, you might be able to figure out more about why you like them or not.

Let’s take AppleDash. AppleDash is a character, separate from Applejack and Rainbow Dash. When I write her, AppleDash is usually teasing, playful, and slightly trollish. She’s also blunt and honest, she never beats around the bush, but she’s not good at sharing feelings. She tends to get into yelling matches and stomp away. But when she realizes that it’s going to cost her, then she can fess up. She rarely gets mushy, but sometimes a few pieces of heartfelt honesty can feel that way.

Now, compare this to ScootaDash as I wrote it in Best Young Flyer. ScootaDash is all about flashy appearances, and trying to balance being cool with a surprisingly down to earth, tender heart. She’s more playful than AppleDash, her teasing doesn’t have as much edge to it, but she’s a lot less sure of herself in general. But she is nothing if not hopeful and determined, and when she does take off nothing can stand in her way.

So if we look at ships this way, not only can we see similarities in ships that we like (I obviously like to write playful ships, for example,) but we can also use it to see some pitfalls that shipping writers sometimes fall into, and show some ways to avoid those.

The cardboard ship:

If a ship is a character, it’s an OC. The ship is not in the show, and people who don’t know the ship will have to be shown just who this character is and what they’re like. And introducing an OC is very different from writing a canon character- it’s not enough to just make up and name and shove it in there. People start out not only not knowing, but not giving a shit about this character. You have to make people care about it, you have to make them want this character to succeed.

Most crack pairings or unusual ships fail because the authors don’t take the time to develop the character of the relationship. They write a fic where Character A loves Character B, and some stuff happens and SHIP! without doing anything to introduce us to the personality of the ship. Is the ship bold or timid? Funny or serious? Does it like flowers and candy, or more practical presents? Is it confrontational, or does it avoid confrontation? If you’re writing a Spitfire x Braeburn fic, you need to show us this stuff! Spitfire falling in love with Braeburn and doing wacky stuff, then admitting her love for him is not going to cut it with anyone.

Now, some ships are big enough to have fanon personalities of their own. Tchernobog and I might write AppleDash differently, but only in the same sense that we characterize Applejack differently. People who read AppleDash, or VinylTavia, or TwiLuna, or any of the big ships are coming in with an idea of what to expect, and many of them are already rooting for the ship. It’s like writing a fanfic about Rainbow Dash- most people reading it know the character, so unless you’ve written her really OOC, you’re halfway there on characterization.

But what if someone is reading your fic about Rainbow Dash who doesn’t really like Rainbow Dash? Well, that where characterization can be important even in well established ships. Because if you’re good enough at characterization, of a character or a ship, you can get comments like “I don’t even like <Rainbow Dash/ AppleDash>, but this was good.”

So how do you characterize a relationship? Well, that’s actually more or less what my How to Recruit People to a Ship essay was about. But it basically comes down to knowing how the ship acts, then showing it acting that way. That means that even if Character A hasn’t told Character B how they feel yet, there needs to be plenty of time where Characters A and B are together, and showing people what happens when they interact. “Conversations about stuff” are a great way to do this, especially before the relationship is known to both characters. Even if Character A is sure they’ll never tell Character B the truth, they can still talk about baking a cake, or going to the movies, or wrestling alligators, and the way they talk is going to give people an idea what the relationship is like. The more of that there is, as long as it’s “in character” for the relationship, the more people will understand the character of the ship.

The Bad Ship Mary Sue

If a ship is a character, a ship can be a Mary Sue. This explains so much.

Lets look at the classic Mary Sue. She’s loved by all the good guys, hated by the bad guys, has powers/traits/abilities above and beyond the main characters. She has only a few, token negative traits which are easily glossed over when it comes to the actual plot. . .

So yes, Cadance x Shining Armor is a canon Mary Sue Ship. But we are fanfic authors! We don’t do that!

As a character, a ship needs realistic flaws. Not specifically the flaws of the characters involved, but flaws in the way they interact with each other. Scoot’s desire to be “cool” for Dash isn’t a flaw by itself, but it’s a flaw when it makes up part of ScootaDash. Daring’s desire for adventure and Zecora’s refusal to adventure aren’t negative at all, but they’re the central flaw I address in DaringCora in Daring Do and a Place Called home.

And these flaws need to affect the story. It’s not enough to say “Applejack and Rainbow Dash sometimes had trouble communicating their feelings.” You have to show it happening. It has to make things hard for them. It has to come up when they’re trying to admit that they love each other, or when they’re trying to make up after a fight.

There should be flaws that affect other characters too, something even I tend to forget. Not every other character, even sympathetic ones, are going to get along with the ship. Maybe another character finds the constant bickering annoying. Maybe they find the constant mushy-ness annoying. Maybe they find the ship confusing and try to avoid their friends together whenever they can. This doesn’t have to be over-the-top fillyfooler-hating or unrequited love. I think anyone with friends has known at least one couple they like fine as individuals, but together they have really annoying couple-habits that you only put up with because they’re your friends. Characters who feel this way shouldn't be demonized for being against True Love, and they shouldn't demonize the couple. They just aren't the ships biggest fans.

Anyway, if you literally can’t think of a flaw in your ship that has an effect on your story, you are treating your ship like a Mary Sue. Please don’t write about it.

Also, like any character a ship can learn and grow over the course of a story, but when you get to the part where it’s grown out of all of its flaws, the story is over. This doesn’t often happen realistically, but some stories aren’t based on realism and there’s nothing wrong with “and they lived happily ever after.” It’s just not something you really need to expand on (unless there are still flaws to make it interesting.)

Misery Sues: Like Mary Sues, but depressing too!

This is related to the Mary Sue. In this case, your ship is probably a Mary Sue, but you’re covering up it’s lack of flaws by heaping tragedy after tragedy on it.

Character A loves Character B, but first Character A can’t say it. Then Character A says it just as Character B is carried off by a swarm of Parasprites. Then Character B escapes, and returns to find Character A dying of cancer. The Character A recovers and they say they love each other, but Character B’s dog dies. Then Character A’s cancer comes back, and Character B doesn’t know it because Character A didn’t want to upset them more. Then Character B turns out to be pregnant, and. . .

And none of this has anything to do with flaws in the ship. The ship isn’t learning or growing from these things, we’re just watching as misery is dumped on it so the characters can interact tearfully and thank Celestia they’re alive, or pray to Celestia that they survive.

This is nothing against long, ongoing fics that show a relationship over time, responding to different things. As long as that ship is well developed, those stories are awesome. You can watch the same flaws trip up the ship in different ways, or watch the ship learn and grow and maybe even develop new flaws. But if the ship doesn’t have flaws underneath, all the tragedy in the world doesn’t make a story interesting (except to other people who don’t mind looking at the ship as Mary Sue. And every ship has a few of those.)


I’m sure there are other things that can be applied from individual characterization to ships. I’m going to be keeping this in mind more, because I’ve learned some new things here too. I’ll make a follow up blog if I come up with any good ones, and if you think of anything cool, please share it in the comments.

Report bookplayer · 1,317 views ·
Comments ( 27 )

Wow, way to turn feelies into a science, then mass produce them. I have to say, you're a genius, plain and simple. You may have become a story factory, but it sure is a good one!! I will listen to your advice as if you have made the golden ticket and left it wrapped in a Wonka-bar for all of us to find! :yay:

I found this to be a facinating read. As someone who doesn't write ships, this kinda makes me want to try one.

Once again, lots of good points here to think about.

Perfect timing too as I had an idea pop into my head last night for a rather unconventional ship.

I have no idea how many of your blogposts i have faved in my BROWSER :twilightsmile::rainbowlaugh:
They are really helpfull

There's nothing like a long, insightful bookplayer blog post to help you wind down in the evening. :twilightsmile:

A very good way to think about writing romance. I haven't really thought about it in the sense of a character, but that's most certainly what it is. The rapport of a couple acts and grows just like a separate being throughout a romance story, working through problems and coming out hopefully all the stronger for it in the end.

To tie in with the Misery Sue/ongoing adventure romance stories, one part of the relationship character that should be kept in mind would be the Split Dynamic element. Applejack and Rainbow Dash might both be mares of action, but when confronted with a crisis both respond differently. In an adventure story, the way they go about responding has an effect on the relationship character. Under duress, the ways in which two characters don't see eye to eye can come to light and the relationship character is put under stress. Outside force flaws aren't necessarily as emotionally wrought as inside flaws, but in an adventure fic they come up more often. Talk about them. If you don't, it's just an adventure story with a tacked on Misery Sue relationship wandering numbly through the middle.

Hrm.

I don't know if I really agree with this, with the idea of relationships acting as characters of their own. I think there may be important nuances and differences you're missing. But I do think it's at worst a great convenient fiction. It's certainly a much better way to think about character relationships than to just treat them as clinical plot points that need to be checked off. I do feel like a solid command of well-developed characters takes a lot of weight off of the need to explicitly develop a relationship character – If Rainbow Dash and Applejack stick to their canon personalities, a relationship between them should proceed along certain lines. And if the relationship starts getting wonky characterization, it's going to need believable changes in individual characterizations to suit.

But I very much like that you've gotten me thinking about this. I'm going to have to mess with these issues in the next couple chapters of my current project, and so far I'd just been planning to do what I often do, let things grow organically from character and setting. But spending some time to sit down and think it through a little further could be a big help. Feels a bit like adding an extra node in the middle of a Bézier curve. You can't move it too far without creating a very ugly-looking curve, but that extra bit of intention and control lets you make the whole thing much more natural.

This is what I get for downloading Inkscape.

great, i am writng a fiction, but it doesn't develop into a romance lter, however, since I have not yet written the part, this will help alot with writing :pinkiehappy: thanks

So Misery Sue ships are pretty much every "teen drama" that comes out anymore, right? I think I get it...
-SoI

"Misery Sues: Like Mary Sues, but depressing too!"

Damn! You've discovered my secret!

not really, though

Great blog like usual, pal. One thing I want to say is that Mary-Sue ships can work, provided that the ship isn't the main draw to the story. If I'm reading an adventure fic, I don't need to necessairly see every up and down in a relationship--it's ok to have a rock-solid relationship in a story where there's way more on the line than just the ship

909679
I wouldn't say it's a science, in fact I'm sure it's not. But plot, genre, and characterization are kinds of tools writers have on hand. This is just pointing out another way you can use the tools, using what you know about characterization to make a romance plot more interesting. What you make with the tools, that's the magic. :ajsmug:

909775

Outside force flaws aren't necessarily as emotionally wrought as inside flaws, but in an adventure fic they come up more often. Talk about them. If you don't, it's just an adventure story with a tacked on Misery Sue relationship wandering numbly through the middle.

Absolutely. There's nothing wrong with something external acting as a catalyst to accentuate flaws, or even just as a "stuff" conversation/experience to show the relationship more deeply. But if it's just there to illustrate how awesomely perfect the relationship is and how sad and bad it is when something bad happens, that's when it makes people roll their eyes.

Another thing to point out- the farther a relationship is in the background, the less important the characterization is. Like any character, if the relationship is a "background pony" it doesn't need to do much. Adventure fics can often get away with relationships like this, especially if you're using a "save the girl" type plot. I've never wondered if Mario and Princess Peach need relationship counseling.

909777

I do feel like a solid command of well-developed characters takes a lot of weight off of the need to explicitly develop a relationship character – If Rainbow Dash and Applejack stick to their canon personalities, a relationship between them should proceed along certain lines. And if the relationship starts getting wonky characterization, it's going to need believable changes in individual characterizations to suit.

This is totally true. And most good shipping authors do this naturally, so for a lot of folks this is just a jumping off point to think about different ways they could use characterization ideas to enhance the depth of a ship, as you said.

909893
I just said that exact thing in reply to bats. I was typing it when you posted this.

ETA: I didn't mention the solid relationships thing, but I should have because that's true too.

909925

I've never wondered if Mario and Princess Peach need relationship counseling.

Oh, but you should! I like to imagine Peach is constantly fed-up with Mario's aloofness and throws herself into Bowser's claws just to feel the thrill of being wanted again. Bowser knows he shouldn't, but can't help himself. And Mario, the grim, silent worker wades through oceans of reptiles and fungi to rescue the lady he feels he needs to be there for, but doesn't connect with emotionally.

...Pay no heed, I know I'm strange. :derpytongue2:

909945
Okay, I'll consider it. But I don't need to know it to get through level four, is my point. :ajsmug:

You put this up:

At such the exact right time for me, it's almost scary. Because reading through here, I've come to realize that one of the major throughlines underpinning this latest thing I'm writing is the invisible relationship character trying to figure out what whether her name is Appleshy or Flutterjack. Looking at the story this way, I can see that the chapter I'm working on now is the one where she decides, and now I'm thinking I might want to alter my outline a bit, have her realize that it's not an "either/or" proposition...

In other words: thank you for posting this! :twilightsmile:

Mike

Interesting, especially the parts about Mary Sues & Misery Sues. Do you think about real-life relationships as characters?

I prefer to think about balance or context-appropriateness rather than flaws. Writers always talk about flaws, but you don't need flaws. MLP doesn't rely on character flaws. It uses character traits that are out of balance when the characters are isolated, but that are in-balance and helpful when they act as a team. Maybe MLP is different this way because it's written by and for women. Western literature is based on stories about male heroism. You are supposed to analyze one man at a time, and measure his virtues on his own, in isolation. Because being a male, in humans and horses, is ultimately about competing with other males. That's 90% of everything we do.

I suppose there's some way to use that approach with relationships--base your plot points on aspects of the relationship that cause problems because of the context the characters are in. This could be tricky because then the theme is one that may be true, but that you're not supposed to say in today's Western literature--that context matters, and that sometimes the solution to your problems is not to have a personal epiphany or growth, but to fix them, or change the context. It's okay to say that Twilight's OCD is a virtue instead of a vice when she learns to use it to help organize her friends. It's not okay to say in a story that the solution to a marriage that's under stress because they don't have enough money is to get more money. It's often true in real life! But it would be seen as crass and cynical and discouraging to say it in a story.

You're supposed to tell people that they need to change their attitude, not their circumstances. Their circumstances will change on their own if they just have that one crucial insight! People find this comforting. They like to believe that virtue is rewarded. But this is only true if whenever someone has a problem, it's their fault in some way. 20th-century literature is, in that way, a moral justification for capitalism. (It would be interesting if Russian & Chinese literature is fundamentally different.) Epiphany is a Greek word, but it was invented by James Joyce. In Greek literature, characters didn't have epiphanies; they had fates. Dramas were parables about human powerlessness and the nobility of acting out your role in the social order. Early medieval literature like Beowulf idealized character badassery and constancy, like the manga characters AcreuBall mentions, rather than growth. Late medieval literature glorifies the social order again. Shakespeare was "great" because he was one of the first writers to live in a time when people were allowed to write stories that are acceptable to our culture. Every culture reveres as "art" stories that tell them they are the best of all possible worlds.

910040
Real life relationships are characters in the same way that real life people are characters- they're characters with an author who has no concept of balance, pacing, or symbolism, and can't plot for shit.

Maybe MLP is different this way because it's written by and for women. Western literature is based on stories about male heroism.

Ah, the exception that proves your point. Little Women is about as close to a novelization of MLP as you can get in classic lit. It was also written by and for women, though. It does tend to use "flaws" that the characters work to fix, but it's clear that their flaws are simply mirrors of their virtues- Jo's temper and her passion are the same thing, and her story is in finding a spiritually satisfying direction for that force. Amy is vanity/grace, and Meg is extravagance/comfort.

But I agree with the out-of-balance traits thing, and in a way it's more realistic. There are few "flaws" a person can have, up to and including being a straight-up sociopath, that couldn't be useful and good in the right context. (I've actually pointed out to my husband that most modern mental disorders were revered by some society in history as commendable.)

I suppose there's some way to use that approach with relationships--base your plot points on aspects of the relationship that cause problems because of the context the characters are in. [. . .]

I feel like I agree with points here, but I don't think I understand it as a whole. I think the way to use this approach with relationships in a story is to follow the lead of both the show and Little Women- flaws aren't something to be overcome, they're something to be tempered, redirected, or accepted gracefully. I actually agree with this, I'm a cynic when it comes to how much a character or relationship can actually change and "overcome" flaws. Usually, they find work-arounds, find a situation where the flaws are comfortable, and live with whatever's left.

People find this comforting. They like to believe that virtue is rewarded--and this is only true if every character who has a problem, has a character flaw underlying that problem.

I think you're wrong on this. I think MLP (and Little Women) both argue that virtue is rewarded. . . just by the redirecting or tempering of vices rather than the removal. In the case of Little Women, I think that comes from the transcendentalist roots of Alcott. In MLP I've always figured it came from Faust reading Little Women too many times.

909945

Can't be too dysfunctional--Mario invites Bowser to go-carting all the time.

910689

I like to think he's paying Bowser's way as an apology for all the trouble his dysfunctional relationship is causing. It's kind of a crappy apology, but Mario's rather emotionally distant. The real victim here is Luigi, constantly putting himself in danger to help a taciturn older brother who will constantly overshadow him.

910040

It uses character traits that are out of balance when the characters are isolated, but that are in-balance and helpful when they act as a team.

Except for:

When they all try to help Rarity with her dress designs. Or when they all try to cheer Rainbow Dash on at the Best Young Flyer contest. Or when they all try to get Twilight to see that she's fretting over nothing when she doesn't have a Friendship Report that week. Or when they all try to convince Fluttershy that Discord is irredeemable. Or when they all try to throw a surprise birthday party for Pinkie Pie.

It's one of the things that drew me to the show in the first place: the way it often takes a standard cartoon show plot, hands it to these wonderfully three-dimensional characters, and ends up with something sweetly twisted and unique...

Mike

Wow. Never thought of a romance as a character before. I mean, that actually explains a lot. I never liked writing romance because, you're write, it's an OC >_< Hmm, gives me a lot to think about.

Now I'm wondering how I write Appledash...What is she like to me? Hmm, slightly shy, somewhat private, and unsure about her feelings...hmm, like you said, teasing, playful, but i don't really do the trollish, I don't think. I always think about that as an afterthought, even though it's kinda a big thing between the two. A little pushy, but waiting for someone else to get the hint and take the lead until she can't stand it anymore. Like you said, prone to yelling matches, but willing to listen once things calm down if it means getting back to normal and getting what she wants. And really tender and affectionate when no one is looking.

Hmmm...that took me a while >_< I put WAY too much thought into that. Probably because Appledash is pretty well-established in my head while my other ships are not quite so much, yet....

Anyways, it's late, why am I still up... >_<

Also, like any character a ship can learn and grow over the course of a story, but when you get to the part where it’s grown out of all of its flaws, the story is over. This doesn’t often happen realistically, but some stories aren’t based on realism and there’s nothing wrong with “and they lived happily ever after.” It’s just not something you really need to expand on (unless there are still flaws to make it interesting.)

In other words... there's no story without conflict? :scootangel:

I liked this blog a lot. It's a very nice way to look at it, and certainly something to consider when writing romance in a relationship. You know, because I write so much of it. :twistnerd: But no, this is illuminating?

Personally, I think though, that I don't like the idea of the 'happily ever after' ending out of the fable or fairy tale genre, because like you said, flaws keep things interesting, and there just really isn't any such thing as a perfect relationship, is there? If everything suddenly becomes perfect (read: boring) then how can the investment stay after the story ends? Wouldn't a good story make you go 'oooh, I hope they're alright. I WANT to know what happens AFTER The ending!' rather than just 'that felt nice, it's all over now, ah well.' Because their story still goes on even after the words have ended.

So to me, the best relationship is one where... it's a section out of a larger story, and it doesn't matter if the story goes on or not, if it's written well. But not that I'm an expert on the genre. I'm just thinking out loud. :twilightsmile:

So, my own metaphor for the relationship: (and this applies to every sort, not just romance)

Think of a relationship as beads on a chain, and the quality of relationship the type of chain linking them. It can't be a chain made of pure gold (lavish and too bright for the beads) or a chain made out of fading, terrible threads (can't hold up the relationship and keep them together). Finding the right material for the beads to hang onto the chain is the paramount to the relationship. But the threads extend past the beads. They don't start and end where the beads are, because whoever wore a necklace where the beads were placed at the clasp? No, there is content outside, and that stretches beyond where the beads are placed, and everything's tied together in a circle that encompasses their lives.

911705

Personally, I think though, that I don't like the idea of the 'happily ever after' ending out of the fable or fairy tale genre, because like you said, flaws keep things interesting, and there just really isn't any such thing as a perfect relationship, is there? If everything suddenly becomes perfect (read: boring) then how can the investment stay after the story ends?

While I totally agree with you, you have to remember that's a personal opinion. Some people like fairy tales that just happen to take place in Equestria. And since that's not far off from what the show is, that's perfectly fine. But the point is to make sure those people realize that when you get to that point, the credits roll. You stop writing. Rainbow Dash and Fluttershy have grown to appreciate each other and no longer care about their own personalities because they understand the others point of view so well. They worked out all of their problems and will live together happily from now on, and never ever fight. The end. For some reason, a lot of fanfic writers like to keep writing after that. (And worse, some of them like to start from there, for the full Mary Sue ship experience.)

So, my own metaphor for the relationship: [. . .]

While that makes sense, and works as a metaphor, it just doesn't really lead me anywhere. The thing I found so interesting about the character metaphor is that, by treating it as something else writers deal with, any sort of characterization advice you can find could be tried on the relationship as a whole. It also opens the door for experimentation. What does a relationship look like as an anti-hero? Or as a villain? Could you take a relationship on a hero's journey? Can the relationship itself be an archetype?

Now I'm half tempted to figure out AppleDash's Meyers-Briggs type. I blame you.

909945

Pfft. My room-mates and I constantly have Mario Wii parties (not to be confused with Mario Party), and we're stuck on stupid Bowser at the end of the stupid thing. I keep saying how Peach just isn't enough motivation for me - dumb lady keeps getting herself caught, why should I bust my butt repeatedly to save the silly wench? Now if Bowser had stolen Yoshi, on the other hand, I'd happily go to the ends of the mario-verse to save him...in other words, no I don't think you're strange :derpytongue2:

Anywho, as to the essay - yes. I've never thought about relationships as characters before, but that totally makes sense. Also, someone not liking Rainbow Dash? No such thing. They simply haven't allowed the Awesome (tm) to enter their lives yet and are hence unaware of what they're missing :derpytongue2:

912311

How about a comparison of relationships with famous actors? =D

Just for fun. Not that it's going to make sense.

For example, TwiPie's relationship would be Jim Carrey - Rubbery, full of strange noises, yelling and contortions, but also suddenly turning very serious and emotional during its later years, but still retaining some of the fun of the past when it just started....

RariJack would be Gordon Ramsay - A lot of yelling, shouting, anger, but extremely high standards set that are difficult to adhere to but rewarding and delicious once attained.

Login or register to comment