![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Mar. 12th, 2025
I talked about "Planet Meek" violating a Sacred Story Rule in my last essay, but I realize it's been years since I posted the 10 Rules on Livejournal. I went back over them to see which ones I would need to delete. I was a bit shocked none of them. Some had to be finessed because of how the story shook out, but the intentions behind each rule remained pure, even the ones I forgot about (seriously, does anybody in 2025 even remember what Nanotech is?).
I added some extra thoughts and clarifications here, but the Ten Sacred Rules remain Sacred and (mostly) unbroken (although "Planet Meek!" bends one of them quite a bit).
The following rules are numbered, but not in importance. To put it mildly, people being responsible for their own actions is a more important and unbreakable rule than No Nanotech, even if it appears below it.
If some of the writing in this essay feels a bit clunky, keep in mind I wrote it ten years ago. I was already a pretty GOOD writer in 2015. But the GREAT things I had written back then were few and far between.
The Sacred Rules In No Particular Order:
1. The guiding principle of the story is that the good characters are cooler / more interesting than the evil characters. The more virtuous you are, the more interesting and complex I will make their backstory. I am sick to death of anti-heroes and fiction that states you have to compromise your principles to win the day. If Jack Bauer never existed, I might have never gotten back to the Un-Iverse.
My main model for the character's morality will SORT of be Star Trek. But the thing is, there were only a FEW really interesting characters on the first four Star Trek series (and none on the fifth). One of the things I want to do is come up with interesting and appealing characters who are NOT squares in the same way Harry Kim or Geordi La Forge are. They have failings (although not moral ones) and personality quirks. You want to spend time with these people.
The moral of this particular story is that evil is mundane. Evil is unspectacular. Evil is not romantic or glamorous. Evil is stupid and unimaginative. Evil isn't just morally wrong and something to be defeated. It is simply uncool.
2. Artwork in the Un-Iverse will be old-school cartoon. The simpler, the better. None of the characters will have nipples or body hair. Whenever I see a modern cartoon character with nipples or body hair, aside from being mildly disturbed by it, I am also greatly distracted by it. The artwork of the Un-Iverse will be as appealing as possible. There will be limited fanservice / sexy characters. There will be SOME bloody violence but nothing over the top. When Augatha beheads someone it will be scary, but not disgusting. You should never want to lose your lunch while reading a Gilda and Meek comic.
3. I want the reader to trust what they are seeing. Not believe the scenario is realistic, but that I am not ever pulling a cruel trick.
Dream sequences are rare and limited in scope. Any dreams that happens are things like Twin Peaks that are an actual part of the Narrative. The Dreams actually happened somehow. The reason I am shying away from dreams is because they are often something used to trick the audience into thinking a character has done something horrible, while the writer can immediately buy it back without having to deal with the consequences of it. Like mind control, I do not think a character's behavior is something where there should EVER be case of having your cake and eating it too.
Another reason to do this is something I don't think fiction that engages in those types of tricks understands. The SECOND you do a fake-out dream sequence, the reader or viewer will never trust you again. Under any circumstances. And this is true for fans who had no problem with the dream sequence at it happened. Any time you show a character death, that you want to hurt and destroy the audience, it doesn't land. Because the audience is secretly seeking an escape hatch and a way out of it. The most damaging thing about fake-out dream sequences is they create a relationship with the fan where the fan cannot believe what they are seeing or take bad things happening, that are supposed to have consequences at face value. Out of ALL the damaging tropes most fiction engages in this is the most damaging of them all. What's messed up is I am literally the first person I have ever seen verbalize it in these specific terms. And that scares me because it's so freaking obvious, I shouldn't HAVE to explain it. Creators should already know this, and fans should already object to this for this reason. But both creators and fans take the idea as a matter of course instead of as the bullshit it really is.
Corollary to this: Ixnay on devastating fake-out deaths. You'll cough under your breath "Otterman!" and while yeah, Otterman's death at the end of Lace Doilies is DEFINITELY not real, the difference there is the next issue featuring Bernadette is entitled "Otterman: Quest For The Conduit: Chapter Three: Resurrection". But I want to be clear it's not just because I already telegraphed what I was doing there in the Table of Contents in the first issue of Gilda And Meek which is why it isn't objectionable. It's because I will not spend Bernadette's next few issues putting her through the emotional wringer and grieving the character, trying to trick the reader into believing the worst, and sharing Bernadette's pain (which wouldn't even be real in this scenario). The matter is settled in the first scene of that issue. I will not make Bernadette suffer for no reason, and I will not make the reader suffer for no reason. That is not to say neither Bernadette nor the reader will never suffer. But if and when they do, it will be REAL suffering, and they can believe in its realness because I don't dick people around about this shit. Ending an issue with a potential character death is fine if it's resolved immediately in their next appearance. If you are going to reveal six issues later the person who died was an impostor and the real Otterman is being held in a dark prison somewhere, you did that because you are a shitty storyteller.
4. No 'shipping for Gilda.
There will be NO sexual tension between Gilda and Meek. None. Ever. They will never hook up and never even WANT to hook up. One of the most annoying things about fiction with two opposite sex leads is that they inevitably wind up together as a couple by the end of the story. Even in stories where this doesn't happen (like 30 Rock or Harry Potter) flirtation and will-they-or-won't-they is still part of the subtext. Gilda and Meek are as close of friends as two people can possibly be but have no romantic feelings towards each other. The closest relationship to theirs I've ever seen is Captain Picard's and Guinan's from Star Trek: The Next Generation. But even that show kind of wrecked it with Guinan's line about being attracted to bald men. Nothing like that will happen in the story. Ever.
Frankly, I'm never going to pair Gilda off with anyone EVER. She is never going to have a romance or even have an old romance discussed. Why? Frankly, for the same reason I think Veronica Mars should have remained single and unattached forever. She is SO awesome that there is literally not a man alive who is good enough for her (or woman for that matter). She isn't considered attractive like Kristen Bell is, but she is pretty much out of EVERYONE'S league anyways, and will remain so. Besides, my story isn't about sex or romance anyways, so you won't feel like the character is missing anything.
For the record, Gilda probably DOES have a sex life, and I didn't turn her into a nun just because there isn't a character who is a good fit for her. What she does and doesn't do on her days off is her business. She might have a boyfriend we don't know about or she might not. I do not want to give the impression that Gilda is asexual just because she is not about the 'ship. It is just something that is private for her. Her personal and office life do not intersect because she is a complete professional.
And it's important to me that Gilda does not see the end of her journey being her being able to settle down with a good man and having a family. She doesn't want to stop having adventures with Meek because she LIKES those adventures. Aside from there not being another good match for her, Gilda is not the type of character (or person) who needs (or wants) to be defined by which man she'll settle down with. Her wants and needs are bigger, and in fact, currently being met in her life as it is.
5. No Nanotech. Ever. It does not exist in the Un-Iverse. No-one has even heard of it there, so it won't ever even be brought up jokingly. Not even on the alien planet of robots. It is the ultimate cartoon storytelling crutch, and I think if I ever find myself creating a scenario so complicated that I need to use Nanotech to fix things, it is probably already too complex for its own good, and needs to go back to the drawing board. You may deduce that scientists and sci-fi writers in the Un-Iverse never even DREAMING up Nanotech means the people in the universe are stupid and unimaginative. I think it just means the universe isn't actually lame.
6. People are responsible for their own actions. In all cases. Let me detail the steps I have taken to follow this rule. They are doozies.
No mind control, body swapping, loves spells, demonic possession, memory wipes, or the like. I HATE those stories in genre shows for various reasons, but I'll briefly list the two main ones I object to. I feel it is a violation of a character on par with them being raped. It is NEVER played as that serious in cartoons or TV shows, but if that ever happened to me, I would feel betrayed and disturbed beyond belief. So, no, I'm not going to put my characters through that. The other big reason is that it lets the characters off the hook for any misbehavior they do. You could probably come up with a bunch of "great" story ideas by having your heroes not be responsible for any mess they make (I'm looking at you 50's Superman comics) but in real life actions have consequences. If someone in the Un-Iverse does something terrible, they own that behavior and can never undo it. The character of Otterman is attempting to redeem himself from committing an evil act earlier in his life. But he has no-one but himself to blame for doing it. If he IS redeemed, it isn't going to be because he is magically ensouled by Willow Rosenberg. He is actually going to have to pay for what he's done. I honestly don't know why more writers don't see things this way. By having all of your characters be responsible for their own actions, that just makes it all the cooler when one of your characters does an awesome thing. Again, this idea is one of the biggest reasons I decided to come back to my story. If nobody else is going to do this, I guess I'm going to have to have to be the one who does.
Note: this particular rule will always be observed, but there is a difference between it and nanotech: mind control and demonic possession and the like actually exist in the Un-Iverse. It won't happen to any of the characters we've met. In fact, demonic possession is a very real threat in the first issue of "Gilda and Meek", but it is prevented in the story and doesn't actually occur. There are also a couple of concepts SIMILAR to it, but I think deviate far enough from it, that I don't feel like it violates any of the characters. The first is the fact that Werewolves exist in the Un-Iverse, and a great many of them do not wish to be Werewolves. However, Werewolfism is, by the time my story takes place, a perfectly manageable condition. It wasn't always, but if you take precautions, you will never purposefully wind up hurting anybody else. The second disturbing concept that DOES exist in Gilda and Meek is shape-shifting. I know that is pretty far from mind control, but I think it is similar in that a person could pretend to be someone else (like the hero) and blame their actions on the protagonist. There are only a couple of shape-shifters in the Un-Iverse, but the biggest example I have is a hero in the latter half of the story (Lance Lockjaw). He sometimes uses this power for guile and for spyjinxs and the like, but he never misrepresents himself as someone we've already met. There are a couple of other examples, but even when the characters are using this power to conceal their true identities, they never use it to blame their actions on someone else. It is sort of like the same thing as a supernatural alias, rather than a way to frame someone else for your crimes. But those are the only exceptions. In the Un-Iverse, if you've done something wrong, you've either got to answer for it, or live with it. There isn't a love potion or magic spell you can blame for it.
7. Prophecies are unreliable and are as wrong as often as they are right. Mind-reading and psychic powers are a thing in the Un-Iverse, but predicting the future? Notoriously sketchy. Ironically, there will be an example of a prophecy going down exactly as promised, but that will be a SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY. It never would have happened had people not been trying so desperately to prevent it. The fact that it was accurate is just a coincidence. There are a couple of other examples of prophecies being fulfilled, but they are about a 50/50 batting average of being correct. Better accuracy than every political pundit alive, but not the stuff religions should be founded upon.
See also the first sentence of Rules 6.
8. Gilda and Donna Demented can never appear in the same scene together. Gilda would never fall for her b.s., and would recognize her as a serial killer immediately. I thought about including Bernadette in this rule, but I think she's JUST self-absorbed enough, that I can probably get away with it, if you don't think too hard on it.
However, I eventually had Gilda share a fun scene with Donna in "The Woman In Sunglasses", where Gilda is drunk and nobody takes her warnings about Donna with her b.s. detector seriously. It's played for laughs at the time, but will have serious dramatic consequences for the sequel The Supplements. But the initial reason I made the scene was a friend worried that if Donna and Gilda NEVER shared a scene together, some people might theorize they are the same person. I thought that idea was beyond ridiculous, and then I remembered how dirt-stupid fandom is, and how completely unable they are to take what they are seeing at face value, and I was like, "I am not risking any dumbass starting on argument that the most moral and righteous character is secretly a serial killer on her nights off." So That's Why That Happened.
9. Everything exists. Vampires, zombies, fairies, goblins, trolls, the Easter Bunny, even God. Just because we haven't met them, doesn't mean they aren't there. The Un-Iverse is a BIG place, and I just won't have gotten to it all. A good rule of thumb about fictional (and even some non-fictional) characters: if it's public domain, it exists.
10. And finally the five main characters of "Gilda and Meek" are happy and usually content. Even Bernadette. They are fine with themselves the way they are, and even those of them who have somewhat tragic backstories (like Gilda and the Piranha) don't dwell on the past too much. They don't have chips on their shoulders, or carry an unbearable burden, or feel cursed. For instance, Meek is clearly mentally ill on some level. But it doesn't bother him the way most heroes would be bothered by it. He struggles with it, but it doesn't define him or turn him into someone he's not. He's not a borderline psychopathic vigilante. Bad things will happen to these characters. But all five of them will see these bad things at bumps in the road, and that eventually things will work out if they stick together. It's corny, but none of the five main characters are really all that damaged. That is not necessarily true of all of the characters in the various spin-off titles of "Gilda and Meek" (in "Lace Doilies" Otterman is one unhappy individual and Lance Lockjaw from "F.I.S.H." is flawed and unlikable in many ways) but Gilda and Meek and their three best friends, have good lives and whatever bad things happen to them, they know they will eventually fix them and get back to them. All of the characters have a fundamental sense of morality and will almost never vary from it, no matter how juicy the storytelling opportunities. I reject the idea that to stop evil you need to sacrifice your principles. Most people would find this kind of storytelling bland. With every single anti-hero TV show and superhero comic out there right now, I think it will be a bit refreshing.
I added some extra thoughts and clarifications here, but the Ten Sacred Rules remain Sacred and (mostly) unbroken (although "Planet Meek!" bends one of them quite a bit).
The following rules are numbered, but not in importance. To put it mildly, people being responsible for their own actions is a more important and unbreakable rule than No Nanotech, even if it appears below it.
If some of the writing in this essay feels a bit clunky, keep in mind I wrote it ten years ago. I was already a pretty GOOD writer in 2015. But the GREAT things I had written back then were few and far between.
The Sacred Rules In No Particular Order:
1. The guiding principle of the story is that the good characters are cooler / more interesting than the evil characters. The more virtuous you are, the more interesting and complex I will make their backstory. I am sick to death of anti-heroes and fiction that states you have to compromise your principles to win the day. If Jack Bauer never existed, I might have never gotten back to the Un-Iverse.
My main model for the character's morality will SORT of be Star Trek. But the thing is, there were only a FEW really interesting characters on the first four Star Trek series (and none on the fifth). One of the things I want to do is come up with interesting and appealing characters who are NOT squares in the same way Harry Kim or Geordi La Forge are. They have failings (although not moral ones) and personality quirks. You want to spend time with these people.
The moral of this particular story is that evil is mundane. Evil is unspectacular. Evil is not romantic or glamorous. Evil is stupid and unimaginative. Evil isn't just morally wrong and something to be defeated. It is simply uncool.
2. Artwork in the Un-Iverse will be old-school cartoon. The simpler, the better. None of the characters will have nipples or body hair. Whenever I see a modern cartoon character with nipples or body hair, aside from being mildly disturbed by it, I am also greatly distracted by it. The artwork of the Un-Iverse will be as appealing as possible. There will be limited fanservice / sexy characters. There will be SOME bloody violence but nothing over the top. When Augatha beheads someone it will be scary, but not disgusting. You should never want to lose your lunch while reading a Gilda and Meek comic.
3. I want the reader to trust what they are seeing. Not believe the scenario is realistic, but that I am not ever pulling a cruel trick.
Dream sequences are rare and limited in scope. Any dreams that happens are things like Twin Peaks that are an actual part of the Narrative. The Dreams actually happened somehow. The reason I am shying away from dreams is because they are often something used to trick the audience into thinking a character has done something horrible, while the writer can immediately buy it back without having to deal with the consequences of it. Like mind control, I do not think a character's behavior is something where there should EVER be case of having your cake and eating it too.
Another reason to do this is something I don't think fiction that engages in those types of tricks understands. The SECOND you do a fake-out dream sequence, the reader or viewer will never trust you again. Under any circumstances. And this is true for fans who had no problem with the dream sequence at it happened. Any time you show a character death, that you want to hurt and destroy the audience, it doesn't land. Because the audience is secretly seeking an escape hatch and a way out of it. The most damaging thing about fake-out dream sequences is they create a relationship with the fan where the fan cannot believe what they are seeing or take bad things happening, that are supposed to have consequences at face value. Out of ALL the damaging tropes most fiction engages in this is the most damaging of them all. What's messed up is I am literally the first person I have ever seen verbalize it in these specific terms. And that scares me because it's so freaking obvious, I shouldn't HAVE to explain it. Creators should already know this, and fans should already object to this for this reason. But both creators and fans take the idea as a matter of course instead of as the bullshit it really is.
Corollary to this: Ixnay on devastating fake-out deaths. You'll cough under your breath "Otterman!" and while yeah, Otterman's death at the end of Lace Doilies is DEFINITELY not real, the difference there is the next issue featuring Bernadette is entitled "Otterman: Quest For The Conduit: Chapter Three: Resurrection". But I want to be clear it's not just because I already telegraphed what I was doing there in the Table of Contents in the first issue of Gilda And Meek which is why it isn't objectionable. It's because I will not spend Bernadette's next few issues putting her through the emotional wringer and grieving the character, trying to trick the reader into believing the worst, and sharing Bernadette's pain (which wouldn't even be real in this scenario). The matter is settled in the first scene of that issue. I will not make Bernadette suffer for no reason, and I will not make the reader suffer for no reason. That is not to say neither Bernadette nor the reader will never suffer. But if and when they do, it will be REAL suffering, and they can believe in its realness because I don't dick people around about this shit. Ending an issue with a potential character death is fine if it's resolved immediately in their next appearance. If you are going to reveal six issues later the person who died was an impostor and the real Otterman is being held in a dark prison somewhere, you did that because you are a shitty storyteller.
4. No 'shipping for Gilda.
There will be NO sexual tension between Gilda and Meek. None. Ever. They will never hook up and never even WANT to hook up. One of the most annoying things about fiction with two opposite sex leads is that they inevitably wind up together as a couple by the end of the story. Even in stories where this doesn't happen (like 30 Rock or Harry Potter) flirtation and will-they-or-won't-they is still part of the subtext. Gilda and Meek are as close of friends as two people can possibly be but have no romantic feelings towards each other. The closest relationship to theirs I've ever seen is Captain Picard's and Guinan's from Star Trek: The Next Generation. But even that show kind of wrecked it with Guinan's line about being attracted to bald men. Nothing like that will happen in the story. Ever.
Frankly, I'm never going to pair Gilda off with anyone EVER. She is never going to have a romance or even have an old romance discussed. Why? Frankly, for the same reason I think Veronica Mars should have remained single and unattached forever. She is SO awesome that there is literally not a man alive who is good enough for her (or woman for that matter). She isn't considered attractive like Kristen Bell is, but she is pretty much out of EVERYONE'S league anyways, and will remain so. Besides, my story isn't about sex or romance anyways, so you won't feel like the character is missing anything.
For the record, Gilda probably DOES have a sex life, and I didn't turn her into a nun just because there isn't a character who is a good fit for her. What she does and doesn't do on her days off is her business. She might have a boyfriend we don't know about or she might not. I do not want to give the impression that Gilda is asexual just because she is not about the 'ship. It is just something that is private for her. Her personal and office life do not intersect because she is a complete professional.
And it's important to me that Gilda does not see the end of her journey being her being able to settle down with a good man and having a family. She doesn't want to stop having adventures with Meek because she LIKES those adventures. Aside from there not being another good match for her, Gilda is not the type of character (or person) who needs (or wants) to be defined by which man she'll settle down with. Her wants and needs are bigger, and in fact, currently being met in her life as it is.
5. No Nanotech. Ever. It does not exist in the Un-Iverse. No-one has even heard of it there, so it won't ever even be brought up jokingly. Not even on the alien planet of robots. It is the ultimate cartoon storytelling crutch, and I think if I ever find myself creating a scenario so complicated that I need to use Nanotech to fix things, it is probably already too complex for its own good, and needs to go back to the drawing board. You may deduce that scientists and sci-fi writers in the Un-Iverse never even DREAMING up Nanotech means the people in the universe are stupid and unimaginative. I think it just means the universe isn't actually lame.
6. People are responsible for their own actions. In all cases. Let me detail the steps I have taken to follow this rule. They are doozies.
No mind control, body swapping, loves spells, demonic possession, memory wipes, or the like. I HATE those stories in genre shows for various reasons, but I'll briefly list the two main ones I object to. I feel it is a violation of a character on par with them being raped. It is NEVER played as that serious in cartoons or TV shows, but if that ever happened to me, I would feel betrayed and disturbed beyond belief. So, no, I'm not going to put my characters through that. The other big reason is that it lets the characters off the hook for any misbehavior they do. You could probably come up with a bunch of "great" story ideas by having your heroes not be responsible for any mess they make (I'm looking at you 50's Superman comics) but in real life actions have consequences. If someone in the Un-Iverse does something terrible, they own that behavior and can never undo it. The character of Otterman is attempting to redeem himself from committing an evil act earlier in his life. But he has no-one but himself to blame for doing it. If he IS redeemed, it isn't going to be because he is magically ensouled by Willow Rosenberg. He is actually going to have to pay for what he's done. I honestly don't know why more writers don't see things this way. By having all of your characters be responsible for their own actions, that just makes it all the cooler when one of your characters does an awesome thing. Again, this idea is one of the biggest reasons I decided to come back to my story. If nobody else is going to do this, I guess I'm going to have to have to be the one who does.
Note: this particular rule will always be observed, but there is a difference between it and nanotech: mind control and demonic possession and the like actually exist in the Un-Iverse. It won't happen to any of the characters we've met. In fact, demonic possession is a very real threat in the first issue of "Gilda and Meek", but it is prevented in the story and doesn't actually occur. There are also a couple of concepts SIMILAR to it, but I think deviate far enough from it, that I don't feel like it violates any of the characters. The first is the fact that Werewolves exist in the Un-Iverse, and a great many of them do not wish to be Werewolves. However, Werewolfism is, by the time my story takes place, a perfectly manageable condition. It wasn't always, but if you take precautions, you will never purposefully wind up hurting anybody else. The second disturbing concept that DOES exist in Gilda and Meek is shape-shifting. I know that is pretty far from mind control, but I think it is similar in that a person could pretend to be someone else (like the hero) and blame their actions on the protagonist. There are only a couple of shape-shifters in the Un-Iverse, but the biggest example I have is a hero in the latter half of the story (Lance Lockjaw). He sometimes uses this power for guile and for spyjinxs and the like, but he never misrepresents himself as someone we've already met. There are a couple of other examples, but even when the characters are using this power to conceal their true identities, they never use it to blame their actions on someone else. It is sort of like the same thing as a supernatural alias, rather than a way to frame someone else for your crimes. But those are the only exceptions. In the Un-Iverse, if you've done something wrong, you've either got to answer for it, or live with it. There isn't a love potion or magic spell you can blame for it.
7. Prophecies are unreliable and are as wrong as often as they are right. Mind-reading and psychic powers are a thing in the Un-Iverse, but predicting the future? Notoriously sketchy. Ironically, there will be an example of a prophecy going down exactly as promised, but that will be a SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY. It never would have happened had people not been trying so desperately to prevent it. The fact that it was accurate is just a coincidence. There are a couple of other examples of prophecies being fulfilled, but they are about a 50/50 batting average of being correct. Better accuracy than every political pundit alive, but not the stuff religions should be founded upon.
See also the first sentence of Rules 6.
8. Gilda and Donna Demented can never appear in the same scene together. Gilda would never fall for her b.s., and would recognize her as a serial killer immediately. I thought about including Bernadette in this rule, but I think she's JUST self-absorbed enough, that I can probably get away with it, if you don't think too hard on it.
However, I eventually had Gilda share a fun scene with Donna in "The Woman In Sunglasses", where Gilda is drunk and nobody takes her warnings about Donna with her b.s. detector seriously. It's played for laughs at the time, but will have serious dramatic consequences for the sequel The Supplements. But the initial reason I made the scene was a friend worried that if Donna and Gilda NEVER shared a scene together, some people might theorize they are the same person. I thought that idea was beyond ridiculous, and then I remembered how dirt-stupid fandom is, and how completely unable they are to take what they are seeing at face value, and I was like, "I am not risking any dumbass starting on argument that the most moral and righteous character is secretly a serial killer on her nights off." So That's Why That Happened.
9. Everything exists. Vampires, zombies, fairies, goblins, trolls, the Easter Bunny, even God. Just because we haven't met them, doesn't mean they aren't there. The Un-Iverse is a BIG place, and I just won't have gotten to it all. A good rule of thumb about fictional (and even some non-fictional) characters: if it's public domain, it exists.
10. And finally the five main characters of "Gilda and Meek" are happy and usually content. Even Bernadette. They are fine with themselves the way they are, and even those of them who have somewhat tragic backstories (like Gilda and the Piranha) don't dwell on the past too much. They don't have chips on their shoulders, or carry an unbearable burden, or feel cursed. For instance, Meek is clearly mentally ill on some level. But it doesn't bother him the way most heroes would be bothered by it. He struggles with it, but it doesn't define him or turn him into someone he's not. He's not a borderline psychopathic vigilante. Bad things will happen to these characters. But all five of them will see these bad things at bumps in the road, and that eventually things will work out if they stick together. It's corny, but none of the five main characters are really all that damaged. That is not necessarily true of all of the characters in the various spin-off titles of "Gilda and Meek" (in "Lace Doilies" Otterman is one unhappy individual and Lance Lockjaw from "F.I.S.H." is flawed and unlikable in many ways) but Gilda and Meek and their three best friends, have good lives and whatever bad things happen to them, they know they will eventually fix them and get back to them. All of the characters have a fundamental sense of morality and will almost never vary from it, no matter how juicy the storytelling opportunities. I reject the idea that to stop evil you need to sacrifice your principles. Most people would find this kind of storytelling bland. With every single anti-hero TV show and superhero comic out there right now, I think it will be a bit refreshing.