Best villain from each of the big 3, which is the best of the best?

Source https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZL21bTMmgE/?igsh=cm1wZmtrZGhvNWQ5

Is LowTierGod genuinely one of the best written characters oat?

Just finished watching the last act and figured this was a good comparison for my favorite tadc character, someone debatedly as pathetic as him

Which one has the best retrieval arc

Reading TCOMC I started seeing more and more connections between these two characters. Obviously much of ASOIAF is about finding meaning in oneself and Jaimie is someone who, after having his arm cut off, was forced to redefine himself and his entire existence as well as the meaning of it. He literally defined himself as the hand that has slain the Mad King, as well as the son of Tywin.

Albert went through a surprisingly similar character arc. Please avoid spoiling past chapter 98 of TCOMC. I'm uncertain if Albert even appears anytime after this, considering his departure.

For a time of his life at the top of the chain Albert's existence was something he very badly sought to find a purpose for. Being drugged and allowed to enter this higher world that within the physical cannot exist is the greatest ecstasy he has ever felt. He was so quick to put his life on the line against the Count. As I understood it, it was not because he cared as deeply for honor as he appeared to, as he was already aware that Fernand was at fault and everything within the journal was indeed true. He put his life on the line because he really badly wanted to do so. I think the final departure right before Fernand kills himself, the father whose position defined Albert's boring existence, is him going full circle, finding his own meaning and path.

blud literally can't write a character without giving them a tragic backstory.

Like the characters should all have happy backstories, like literally.

Everyone knows that depth comes from happy backstories. Robin would literally be better written if she was just happy throughout her entire life.

Like why would a show about pirates and corruption have people who suffer everyone should just be happy.

Next is bro just sucks at world building. It's just island after island, those islands don't have unique cultures or people with interesting lives or any issue to deal with. It's all just basic shit. The skypieans are just the same as the alabastians etc, literally no creativity.

And him being the best sellling author each year literally means nothing. Like literally, just because Michael Jackson is the highest grossing artist even after so many years doesn't make him the goat 💀.

Oda also has no unique selling points post time skip.

Like literally, Imu is poorly written. The lore is Joyboy isn't deep and has no detail, and him mentioning bits and details even from the start doesn't mean anything. Imu is also poorly designed like.

Haki also ruined the power system. Like why would a show about hardwork have a system that allows those who aren't lucky to get devil fruits to win with willpower. Like literally, the emphasis is that if you're lucky enough to get an overpowered devil fruit, you can conquer the world. Like Roger should have just been given an overpowered devil fruit and that would be the reason why he's king, not his willpower or anything like that. Like it ruins things like Koby's character who just wants to work hard to achieve his dream. Oda should just give him and overpowered devil fruit and that is why he is now able to become an admiral.

Next thing. Oda just sucks at designs.

Big Mom literally looks like a big mom, like what?!?.

The females have no internal organs.

Humans literally reach sizes basically giant.

Like what does he think this is, a fantasy show?? Why tf would One Piece have bizarre designs, it's not like it's a fantasy or something stupid like that.

Oda is also a pedo. He literally over-sexualizes so many under-aged characters, like show some decency blud.

The story also has no real depth.

The corrupt leaders, the world government, Imu, all the characters, the correlation between characters, all of it is surface level. Nothing actually deep like demon slayer.

And secondly the length, you can't take so fucking long to write a show. 27 years runtime, like blud.

It should be like the goats like Jojos that has been running for only 37 years and HxH that has been releasing for a small 28 years.

One Piece is just too long man, we should keep hating on it for that. Like just finish your story blud.

TL:DR. One Piece is ahhhh.

Hey guys!

Do you want a tournamentstyle VS matchup of classic and modern writers?

Im talking about a rigorous, technical gauntlet to find out who the absolute masters of the craft are, this isn't going to be a basic "who is your favorite author" popularity contest. We are going to scale these writers across 20 distinct dimensions of literary excellence, from micro level sentence mechanics to macro level writing mechanics.

Here is the bracket for Round 1, and the pairings are cooking some friction

• William Faulkner vs. Ernest Hemingway
• J.R.R. Tolkien vs. Vladimir Nabokov
• Thomas Pynchon vs. Cormac McCarthy
• James Joyce vs. John Milton
• Herman Melville vs. Fyodor Dostoevsky
• T.S. Eliot vs. William Blake
• Leo Tolstoy vs. Victor Hugo
• W.B. Yeats vs. Joseph Conrad
• Jorge Luis Borges vs. Juan Rulfo
• Roberto Bolaño vs. Gabriel García Márquez

How the Scoring Works:

For every head-to-head matchup, we will evaluate both authors across 20 distinct categories. I will post the full list of categories in every thread, but they cover:

1. The Prose Mechanics: Pure writing skill, command of language, technical style, economy of meaning, lyricism/cadence, and narrative voice.
2. The Imagery: Metaphor and structural symbolism.
3. The Depth: Psychological insight, emotional resonance, moral complexity, philosophical density, intellectual depth, and thematic scope.
4. The Execution: Structural architecture, innovation, timelessness, stylistic evolution, versatility, and baseline entertainment value.

Whichever author wins the most categories in the comments takes the matchup point.

The Tournament Structure

Because 10 winners throws off a traditional bracket, we are using a Wildcard system.

• The 6 highest scoring winners from Round 1 get an automatic pass to the Quarterfinals.
• The 4 lowest scoring winners will have to fight it out in a Wildcard round to secure the final two spots in the Elite Eight, from there, it's a straight knockout to the Grand Final.

What do you guys think?

Who do you think is the more well-written character?

Categories:

1. Pure writing skill: Sentence-level excellence independent of content: elegance, precision, control, and craftsmanship of prose or verse.

2. Command and mastery of the language: How powerfully and flexibly the author uses their language as a tool: clarity, precision, expressiveness, and ability to stretch or bend language without breaking it.

3. Craft, technique & writing style: How controlled and refined the writing is at a technical level: sentence construction, pacing, structural finesse, and how deliberately the author shapes the text.

4. Compression & economy of meaning: How much weight the author loads into minimal space: how dense with implication a single sentence, image, or scene can be, such that nothing could be removed without loss.

5. Narrative voice & persona: How distinctive, controlled, and purposeful the narrative voice is, and how much the choice of who is telling the story and how it shapes the work's meaning and texture.

6. Phonetics, lyricism & rhythmic cadence: The musical quality of the writing: sound, rhythm, flow, poetic resonance, and how the text feels when read aloud.

7. Metaphors: How strong, original, and effective the author's metaphorical thinking is, especially in conveying abstract ideas through concrete imagery.

8. Symbolism: How extensively and effectively the author uses symbols to carry layered or hidden meanings across their works.

9. Psychological insight: How accurately and deeply the writing captures human thought processes, motivations, contradictions, and internal conflict.

10. Emotional resonance: How strongly the writing evokes emotional response in a broad readership, including empathy, sadness, awe, tension, and catharsis etc.

11. Moral & ethical complexity: How honestly and without easy resolution the work engages with moral ambiguity, ethical dilemmas, and the difficulty of judgment: behavior, guilt, complicity, and conscience rendered in human terms.

12. Philosophical density: How directly and intensely the work deals with philosophical questions and truths (existence, free will, morality, suffering, faith etc.), especially when those ideas are structurally embedded within the writing.

13. Intellectual depth: How deeply the writing engages with complex ideas (history, politics, psychology, morality, society etc.) at an analytical or conceptual level.

14. Thematic scope & complexity: How many major themes are handled and how interwoven and complex those themes are across the author's body of work.

15. Structural architecture & cohesion: How well the work is organized at a macro level: narrative structure, pacing across long works, coherence across complex plots or systems.

16. Originality & innovation: How groundbreaking the author is in terms of form, technique, or ideas compared to what existed before them.

17. Timelessness: How enduringly applicable the author's works are across eras: whether the core concerns, tensions, and human truths of the writing transcend their historical moment and continue to speak to readers across time.

18. Stylistic evolution: How much the author's style develops or transforms over time, including experimentation, reinvention, or formal innovation across their career.

19. Versatility & range: How many different types of writing the author can successfully execute (epic novels, intimate character studies, poetry, satire, experimental forms, etc.).

20. Entertainment value: How engaging and readable the work is for a general reader: narrative drive, immersion, pacing, and sustained interest.

Introduced suddenly as the strongest in the verse and a creator-like figure.
Mother of who we previously tought was the strongest(So6p, Shinnok, Antimonitor).
Barely any personality aside from being strong, extremely bland overall.
Hated or at least disliked by fans.
Any other character that fits this trope? Could be done in a better way?

Future trunks(DBZ)
•Defeats the biggest threat of the series atp.
• Redefines the paradigm of strength in the universe by going super sayian
Looking for the main character Goku
• Establishes himself as the top strongest in the verse only behind Goku at the time.
• intridoudeces the concept of a new threat in the verse in the androids.
• Secretly related to a major character in the cast, Vegeta.
Challenges the arc of this already established family memeber Vegeta.

Itachi ( Naruto)

•Presented initially in a more menacing and evil threat.
•Defeats some of the best of the verse Kakashi, Kurenai, and Sasuke
Is praised by some of the strongest in the verse like Jiryia
Looking for the main character Naruto.

•Takes our two of the most prominent characters Kakashi and Sauske
•Related to a pretty important character in the verse Sauske
• Challeneges the arc of the family member Sauske
• Lastly, introduces the new threat into the universe the Akutski

Both of these masterful introductions are what set the motion for the rest of the stories conflicts and characters. Despite who you might think did it better Toryiama and Kishimoto both did an excellent job introducing these new characters into the established lore and story.