The Wordsmith's Forge

>> Immediately and gratefully, thank you for the 'problem area' content warnings WELL in advance of the actual scenes. <<

I'm glad that works for you. Most of this story is adorable fluff, but the angst parts are downright intense -- and that's coming up very soon now.

>> Frankly, your writing engrosses me well enough that, so far, every difficult concept has been MORE than amply "rewarded" by the wonderful portrayals of the characters. <<

Yaaayyy! That's always gratifying to hear. I try to make sure that the payoff is well matched to the climb.

>> You write not to simply show "hurt/comfort," but to show (and hopefully,subtly tinker with) the psychological, emotional, and mental underpinnings of the universe where the story takes place. <<

Yes, exactly. It's not just about the what, but the how and the why. It's like the difference between the formulaic plot of a mystery, and the storytelling. With something like superhero fic, the worldbuilding is an essential part of that. I got some wonderful new bits of that for Polychrome Heroics this week.

>> That's a million worlds away from writing... gore, of any stripe, with the primary purpose of shocking the audience. <<

Some people like to be shocked that way, much as some people enjoy electrical play, riding rollercoasters, or going into haunted houses. Not my cuppa.

>> (It may have other purposes, but I'm not sure, as my tolerance for that kind of "entertainment" is so low as to be measured with a microscope. An electron microscope.) <<

There are many reasons for reading and writing. Catharsis is another, for most intense topics. Also some people watch goreflix to desensitize themselves, which is useful in certain occupations.

>> Phil and Jarvis are beginning to communicate, to truly collaborate. I am delighted! <<

Yes, they are. One fun thing about writing the two of them is how well their skills match up. Despite JARVIS finding human emotions a little challenging to parse at times, and Phil having no prior experience with AI people, they are two of the best communicators on the team. Thus they tend to mesh well.

>> They will NEED that trust, however tentative, when they begin to communicate about more personal topics. <<

Absolutely. They're about to fall into the deep end, too.

>> I think Phil's "superpower" is his insight into human psychology. <<

I don't know if that one is officially listed, but yes, he can do far more than an ordinary person so I'd say it qualifies. Phil's handling insight is on par with Clint's archery aim.

>> So far, I'm not seeing hints that he survived an abusive or traumatic childhood (quite the opposite, in fact, given how naturally he acts as caretaker, both as Agent Coulson and as Uncle Phil). <<

As with Bucky and Steve, Phil's childhood was about as good as the Avengers get. Not perfect, but positive. Given his extreme competence and reserved bearing, I suspect that Phil grew up in a family with very high expectations. He probably had a lot of responsibilities, perhaps taking care of younger siblings or cousing, which he seems to enjoy. That can be stressful in its own way. Phil doesn't have a lot of damage -- but I'd bet his aversion to silence predates losing people off the comms, and goes back to the silent treatment as a childhood punishment. It's not violent, but for some people it's devastating.

>> Did you set out intentionally to make him a "model of preferred adult interactions"? <<

Yes. It's based on his calm competence in the movies. Most of the places where Phil seriously fucks up can be linked to orders or information routed through Director Fury, either directly or implied by context. I also draw heavily on the fact that -- despite some poor choices on Phil's part -- Tony chooses to trust him. There must be something powerful going on if someone as damaged as Tony can clock Phil as trustworthy.

>> Really, one can pick a psychological skill and place any other character (save Nick Fury, who is conspicuously absent in any meaningful way, thank you!) in a spectrum from "least able to deal with it," to Coulson's "sane and competent, fully adult" mindset. <<

Yes, that's true. The Avengers vary in their strengths, weaknesses, coping skills, and how much headwork they've done. Steve is in pretty good shape because, despite being dropped on his head several times, he has both innate resilience and a sturdy foundation. He'll hurt, but he'll heal from it. Betty is also coming on strong since she took years of therapy to fix the mess her father made of her life, and that worked.

Nick Fury, as portrayed in the movies, is barking mad. He does needlessly cruel things much the way villains do, yet is purportedly a good guy. He's supposed to be smart, but his actions are often stupid. This dichotomy between show and tell poses a literary problem. I had to come up with a logical way to explain that godawful mess, and eventually I found one I really like. But I still dislike Fury as a character, so I tend to avoid him as much as practical.

>> That doesn't mean he isn't strongly emotional, or strongly affected; it's his resilience and confidence (in most definitions of the word) that I find engrossing. <<

Sooth. I always strive to write balanced characters, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. The hints we have in canon -- for example, telling Black Widow what happened to Hawkeye -- imply that Phil has deep, powerful feelings that he keeps under control and rarely expresses in overt displays. He is calm and capable because people need an anchor. But nobody's invulnerable.

I like exploring the exceptions: how a weak person can gain strength, where a strong person breaks down, the one thing someone can't do well, etc.