As a general rule I read and write in only two fandoms: Naruto and Harry Potter.

Beliefs and Perspectives.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and thoughts and however you'd like to described the things going on inside one's brain. To that end a person's beliefs and perspectives color and translate what they experience. For example I have a sister in law who believes all killing is wrong and that it is always a sin. Because of her beliefs she told another of her sisters that joining the military after high school graduation was wrong and would lead to her going to hell. She made it perfectly clear in not so many words that didn't support that choice of profession. Myself already having served over six years in the military found that to be both inflammatory and derogatory. However I respect her right to say and believe what ever it is she wants to. Two People read the same book with identical text and come to drastically differing conclusions. Neither person is right and neither person is wrong. It's the reason there are multiple dominations of every church for every religion. "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest." (Quote from the movie the American President 1995.)

That being said I do my best to respect everyone's beliefs to the best of my abilities. I may not agree with you but I will do my best to not insult or belittle you or them. If I do end up doing either of those things I apologize and I'd like to know so I can not do it again in the future. In return I expect the same common courtesy. There's no reason to be insulting, degrading, or inflammatory. It's perfectly possible to tell someone you disagree with them, don't like them, or don't like what they've written and why without being any of the above. The inability to do just that is the hallmark of the small minded and will lead to me ignoring your existence.

How does that mean anything for the stories I write? Any story I write and post here is going to be at loosely based on a cannon universe. Because of that my beliefs and perspectives color what I see and believe is going on in the story. For example in the Harry Potter cannon universe I believe that Harry is at least emotionally abused. There is evidence that suggests he is physically abused but it isn't overt. For example the threat of withholding food, being "thrown" into the cupboard under the stairs, and even in the movies where Vernon is holding Harry against the stairs by his hair. Even Dudley's enjoyed past time of "Harry Hunting" suggests a physically abusive environment. However we don't directly see Harry being whipped or struck or having his bones broken. Nor is there any suggestions about anything sexual(in almost any regard what so ever) in the books at all, which I can respect as the books were written so they could be read by children.

Therefore when I read, or write, a story where Harry grows up with the Dursely's I see him as an abused character in desperate need of friendship, affection, and counseling. He's emotionally stunted and doesn't understand how to socialize, interact with others, or how to trust adults. My perspective and beliefs on Harry's upbringing colors and clouds the way I see him as a person and it also effects how I see his interactions with everything from the world to other people. The reason I say all this is if you want to really understand a story you have to understand the writers mindset. The age and era it was written, the culture and values of a society, and a writers position in society all effect the way a story can be interpreted. A diary written in 1805 in the south would be totally unacceptable in modern america. The writings of a young male and an old women are drastically different and require different thought processes to understand each. A king would not have the same to say as a pauper. I'm not, nor will I ever, ask the reader to agree with my perspectives on the world I write. I do ask you to try and understand them though. If you don't understand why I'm wiriting something the way I am just ask and I will do my best to explain it.

Stories and writing in general.

To me personally there are two key things I like to focus on when I write or read a story.

Characterization I feel is one of the most important things to a story. How a character reacts, responds, and interacts with the world around him is predominately the method of how the story is told. To that end a character can be whatever the author needs them to be so long as it is reasonably explained. For example one thing that upset me in the last book of Harry Potter is Molly Weasley out dueling Bellatrix. I can accept that a parents motivation to keep their child safe can inspire them to do great things but a character that has been described as a house wife isn't going to instantly be able to fight off a navy seal, SAS, or James Bond. Bella was supposed to be the Dark Lords right hand and one of his most fearsome enforcers but she got taken out by a housewife who was never seen fighting, dueling, or anything of the like. I'd have gladly accepted Professor McGonagall killing Bella; it would of even had a certain amount of balance to the results.

Content and the general plot. If characters are the vehicle and mouthpiece of how a story is told then the plot and content are the map and script. To me a story should be a general progression of conflict(External, Internal, interpersonal, or societal) and characters either overcoming their challenges or failing and having to deal with the results. Without a conflict a story is just pretty words on the screen or paper. Likewise a character that never fails, never loses, is hard to relate to. The flip side of that argument is that a character who never gets a real victory can be seen as enduring but it can also be depressing. An example of the first case would be a fanfiction where Harry is portrayed as a god among wizards or the reincarnation of merlin himself. Harry walks in zaps the bad guys and saves everybody. Rinse and Repeat. The latter is actually very close to cannon. Seriously for the better part of six years Harry had very few victories and the victories he did have didn't improve his situation. Finally introducing an ability, item, or skill that magically allows a person to overcome mountains of obstacles in mere moments is just bad tact. Yes I'm talking about you elder wand, mangekyou sharingan, and every other instant win plot line device ever created. It's the same as admitting "I've painted my characters into a corner and I have no other way to get them out of it."

Harry Potter.

I love the world of Harry Potter. It's rich, fresh(or at least was when it was created), and has nearly unlimited potential for story telling. That being said I don't like the plot or the way it was portrayed in cannon. In some respects I believe there are two distinctly different universes. The first three books were drastically different from the last three books and book four acted as a bridge between the two sides. It went from a story and universe for children to a story and universe for young adults. The first was light hearted and if taken with a grain of salt enjoyable. The latter was dangerous, war torn, and required blind acceptance to not see the plot holes. A death eater pretending to be a teacher? A ministry cover up inspired by fear that turned into a smear campaign against both "Champions of light" ? The dying and ailing headmaster choosing not to pass on his magical knowledge but rather pensive memories to his replacement? The entire battle of Hogwarts, the elder wand, and Ron managing to open the chamber of secrets? I sometimes wonder what kind of story Rowling would of written had she been forced rewrite the first six books to utilize book seven's comprehensive knowledge.

I think my largest complaint is that beyond being entertaining, which nobody can deny the series succeeded in being entertaining, is that the book delivered nothing. In that essence the book series as a whole is a failure. Now hear me out for a moment. A children's book is supposed to be something a child can read, understand, and ideally learn from. There were no moral truths, or lessons, or anything worth learning from anything in any of the books. In book one eleven year old children are taught they can't really depend on or trust their teachers(adults in general maybe). I blame Snape, McGonagall, Dumbledore, and Hagrid. I expect them not to trust Lord Voldemort in the stories; he is the personification of evil. Between Snape's petty vindictiveness against someone twenty years younger than him and blatant favoritism kills any ability to teach or to be trusted. Hagrid drags four first years into a forbidden forest that has werewolves and something killing unicorns. The kids tried to help a member of the staff out and instead of being rewarded they lost fifty points and got a detention. Follow this up with them being ignored when they went to their head of house about a magical artifact of supreme power being hidden in the school being in danger and the children are left to assume that they are in fact the only ones capable of doing what the adults can not do. I won't even bother to discuss the Dursely family or Dumbledore.

So as a children's book it sends the wrong message. Several times over in fact on many different subjects. Criminals and terrorists don't get to walk free if they say they are sorry. Love is not the begrudging acceptance that Harry's aunt shows when she takes him in. There are no soul-mates who magically complete you or anyone else. Relationships don't spring up over night into the most powerful and life altering things they were displayed as. You don't go from never noticing someone to thinking they are your entire world in less then three months; that's not love that's lust and hormones acting up. Nor is jealousy, insecurity, and the "opposite's attract argument" a firm foundation for a relationship.

As a piece of serious literature it's inconsistencies and lack of foresight/hindsight leaves a honest logical thinker wondering what JKR was smoking when she penned the series.

In general I will say this for the Cannon characters in Harry Potter. I like Harry, Hermione, the twins, Luna, Arthur, Lily, Neville, and most of the Professors. I'm neutral on Dumbledore, Snape, the Marauders, Molly, and Ginny. I don't like Ron, Draco and his thugs, any of the death eaters, or most of the people in the ministry. I have my reasons and I'll try and explain them to the best of my ability.

Harry: "You're not a bad person. You're a very good person, who bad things have happened to." Sirius really could of written the by line for the entire book and movie sets with that one line. Fundamentally Harry is a flawed hero who can't really be called a Hero at all. All he really wants, at least that we've ever seen, is to be normal. He wants to go flying, he wants to be left alone, and he wants to live life. None of those things are bad. Harry is at best a reluctant hero who gets thrown into waters he doesn't want to be in. The biggest problem and for Harry his biggest benefit as a character is that almost none of these things are Harry's fault. Nearly every major and minor flaw Harry demonstrates can be laid at the feet of somebody else.

Harry doesn't know anything about the magical world and is exceptionally clueless? Blame the headmaster and his family. Harry slacks off in his school work? What's the reason in excelling when he gets nothing from it what so ever? No praise, no acknowledgement, and most likely being punished for excelling. No Harry Potter learned long ago that keeping his head down and being invisible was the best way to survive. Harry is angsty, angry, depressed, and overemotional without any ability to express said emotions? He has a horcrux stuck in his head for seventeen years and is tortured in varying degrees and methods for almost half a decade. Between the dementors in third year, the dreams that started in fourth year and continued through his seventh, being held under the torture course by a dark lord before fighting for his life, being "trained" in the mind arts by Snape, Blood quills by Umbridge, dealing with the death of his last father figure, having the weight of his world thrust onto his shoulders, watching his mentor and pseudo grand father be murdered before his eyes, living in the vicinity of another horcurx while being hunted by every authority in the magical realm, and being asked to DIE is it any wonder the boy got pissed off at points? Hell Frodo Baggins got pissy being asked to carry a ring to a volcano and nobody seems to think worse of him for it. And in the end Frodo couldn't even be bothered to destroy the thing.

It's all a matter of perspective. Harry had more crap hurled at him for existing than any child, or man for that matter, had any business dealing with. Even as a conservative estimate Harry had no less than ten near death experiences in less then seven years. Many of them he shouldn't of survived. By the age of fourteen he'd been physically tortured and watched a friend of his being murdered. He had no support at home, he was isolated from his friends when he often needed them, he was even isolated from his own money that his parents left him and wasn't able to outfit himself in decent clothes or glasses or secure enough food for the growing body of a teenager. Any one of the things Harry had gone through should of put him in therapy. Most people would have had a nervous break down and lost it. And at the end of it Harry is still a good guy, he shouldn't be but he is. That's why Harry is a character I can respect.

Dumbledore: "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" is Dumbledore to the letter. Dumbledore is a great character for writers. He could be anything from an incompetent fool to a dark lord or a manipulative "white" lord. He tries to do what he feels is right but most of his decisions have horrible consequences or ignore the reality of the situation. He's an overworked old man who shouldn't be doing a half of what he is. Yes he's a great and powerful wizard but that doesn't make him all knowing or infallible.

Snape: The personification of a self serving snake. I don't believe he ever really loved Lily. Lusted for her? Yes. Wanted to keep her way from James? Yes. Loved her in the self sacrificing way James loved her? Not a chance in hell. I wholly believe that the only reason Snape joined the order is because it protected him. Regardless of which side he was on he would come out protected and safe. I highly doubt that Snape would of turned his wand on Tom had the dark lord turned out victorious. And even all that being said I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt greatly and excusing much of his behavior as "cover" for being a death eater.

The Marauders: Are shown to have multiple facets to who and what they did. They were fun loving guys who sometimes crossed the line into being bullying arrogant gits. Sure sometimes it was deserved but not always.

Molly: An overprotective overbearing mother who thinks she should know everything about her children. She's not evil by any stretch but she doesn't understand how to let go and let young adults be young adults. The way she acted, or allowed others to, and treated Bill's fiancée was rather unsettling. Beyond that she was never Harry's or Hermione's mother and to think that she had a right to tell them what they could or couldn't do was simply wrong. Her treatment of Sirius, inside his home none the less, the one person who actually had a right to parent Harry was despicable. She's lucky he didn't throw her and her entire family out of their safety net.

Ginny: Honestly up until the fifth or sixth book she's an almost non existent character and she almost doesn't appear at all in the seventh book. I do get it though. She's a year younger so her classes wouldn't overlap nor would they be studying the same material. She can't go on the trip in the seventh book because she's underage. But we see so very little of the character it's hard to say anything good or bad about her. I will say this; by the end of book six I don't think she knows Harry Potter very well. They'd been dating for a few months and she seems to think Harry wants to go after Voldemort. Either she doesn't have a clue about who she's in love with or we the readers don't have a clue about who we've been reading about for six books.

Draco and Inc.: Their arrogant bigots who need an ass kicking. But they've been raised to be exactly what they are. Do you shoot them and be done with it or do you send them to therapy and go after their parents?

Ron: I'll say it I don't like Ron. He's ambitious but is so lazy he can never capitalize. His mother's coddling reduced his mental/emotional age by about three or four years and it takes years for him to be even halfway tolerable. He's very much a gryffindor version of draco. He's bigoted, materialistic, judgmental, and lazy. The bravest thing I think I can say he's ever done is going into the forbidden forest to "follow the spiders". His loyalty and trustworthiness are in question having abandoned his friends twice, and the last time they were actually being hunted by the bad guys. Even as a first year he had delusions of grandeur and was beset with envy at the things Harry had. I really did try looking for his good points but having to look through dragon dung to find a diamond chip seems extreme. The best I can say for him is that he's good at chess and a fair flyer. Oh and he's really good at apologizing. Lot's of practice with that.

However I feel the need to clarify something here having come back and looked at this. It's not the eleven year old Ron Weasley I don't like. It's the man the eleven year old turned into I can't stand. At what point does the "he's a child" excuse become invalid? 14? 15? 17? 35? In the first two books Ron's character is understandable and excusable. However by book three between the rants about a rat he doesn't like being attacked by a friends intelligent cat and a broom that isn't his the reader needs to start asking some questions. Book four has Ron throwing a jealous temper tantrum because the magical cup of blue fire picked his best friend to compete in a tournament that people have died in. This was followed up by him ranting and raving at a girl (who day is revising his homework and letting him use her notes on Ron's best day) on what would be a kin to prom night. If Ron's abuse of authority and his irresponsibility in regards to his prefect status(a status that he hadn't earned and was in fact a second choice for McGonagall) doesn't raise an eyebrow I don't know what to say. He knowingly consumes what he believes is a drink spiked with an illegal performance enhancing drug in book six. A similar thing happens in the movie A Few Good Men, some E-3/4 tries to get high off of a condiment but is to stupid to realize it's not pot. To quote Kaffee " My client's a moron that's not against the law." He's right it's not against the law but it says a lot about the person's character and morality. In book seven Dumbledore had enough foresight to see that Ron would once again abandon Harry so he gave him a special magic device that would help him find them again after he pulled his head out of his neither regions. Here's the real kicker. The final straw that makes it impossible to stand the man Ron Weasley becomes. The epilogue. He's what would amount to being a cop in the mundane world. He knowingly and admits to using magic on a muggle on a test he didn't need to pass. Let me clarify that in muggle terms. He whipped his gun(wand) out. Used force(magic) to force(confound) the instructor into giving him a passing grade. Can anyone imagine an actual cop pulling a stunt like that to get a pilots license and keeping his badge? Abuse of power/authority, intimidation, misuse of force/firearm, reckless endangerment... . Oh and there's the bit about threatening to disown his daughter if she's not sorted into the house of lions. Even if you take it jokingly an eleven year old doesn't need to hear that. Several quotes to keep in mind: "A person who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice person” , "People want power but not wisdom. Power without wisdom is a very dangerous thing. Better to have wisdom first." , "You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him."

Deatheaters: The worth sort of scum and there isn't an execution method vile enough to dispose of them.

Ministry personal:Cowards and sheep. like much of the wizarding world oddly enough.

Also as a general rule I don't like making changes for changes sake. Yes I could turn Hermione into a female version of Ron if I really wanted to but why would I? Likewise I could turn Ron into a studious person who takes things quite seriously but how would I justify that in his character? I do my best to avoid bashing of characters but I also strive to keep them within the realms of their persona until something happens to force them to be different. In my only published story at the moment I portray Hermione as a bit of a stuck up stickler for the rules at the start of it. That's exactly how she was both in the books and in the movies.

I would also like to take the time here and say thank you to those who have written things that I have read that have made me think and in turn have changed the way I felt about the world of Harry Potter. To ARedHair, muggledad, and Sillimaure your stories and Bio's are well thought out and filled with logically sound arguments. To say that some of my assumptions are not based on their work and writing would be a lie. If you haven't read their works or Bio's you are very much missing out.

On the First Law of Fanfiction.

It has been brought to my attention that there is something known as the First Rule of Fanfiction: “every change which strengthens the protagonists requires a corresponding worsening of their challenges”. This is better known as the rule of “You can't make Frodo a Jedi without giving Sauron the Death Star.” I don't know who started this and frankly I wonder what they were thinking. I think they were trying to be clever but if you ask me they failed. On the surface it seems like a sound bit of logic. The problem is that telling stories isn't about balancing equations. It's about taking the reader on a journey that is understandable, entertaining, and something they can relate to.

Personally I prefer Newton's Third Law myself to which this notion seems to derive from. You might know the one I'm talking about: “To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction I have two main complaints about this notion of fanfiction that has been deemed the first law. Foremost is the following.

According to the The First Law of Fanfiction if any hero goes from being able to lift a ten pound weight to being able to lift a twenty pound weight their enemies must also double in strength. But what happens if someone takes a warhammer to Frodo's spine and leaves him paralyzed from the waist down? Shouldn't Sauron lose something just as valuable to him? Like say his all seeing eye or his wraiths that go around looking for the fellowship? After all it's only fair right? If we're going to cripple the Hero we should certainly maim the bad guy as well right? It's really after all just the reversal of the first law. Fortunately it's also a fallacy that ignores the universal law of causality. Unless an author is able and willing to display the interconnected steps that lead to both how and why the death star shows up in Middle Earth it is illogical and irrational for the battle station to magically appear on the horizon.

Some people seem to think It's perfectly acceptable to toss something harder or more challenging a hero's way or to take away something that would be their greatest strength and nobody seems to think the bad guy should get weaker or have to work harder as a result. It's irrational to think they would. If I cut off Aragorn's right arm the ogres, goblins, trolls, and orcs aren't just going to start fighting him one handed in a sense of being fair or having honor. Why than is the opposite so strongly embraced? It's a twisted notion of "power balance" that ignores reasoning in favor of making it easier to show conflict.

Further more in regards to deus ex machina, or as I like to call them “Hero win devices without any logical reasoning behind them”, the moment you remove them from the hero or add one to the bad guy the author is forced with a multiple choice decision.

A: Provide the Hero with a set of skills, talents, and abilities that make up for the differences in the instant win device. The most fun and leads to the most interesting combat/fights.

B: Provide another, albeit different, Hero win device at the last second. It's a rather soft option but logically sound.

C: Weakening the enemy. Very unrealistic; after all since when do bad guys care about power balance and fairness?

D: Killing the hero. Unfortunately letting the bad guy win is never fun or popular despite that it would be perfectly rational, logical, and realistic.

Now if an author wants to add or remove anything that helps or hinders a Hero they have to look at it as a whole. What does the Hero gain/lose from this item or ability? How does it impact the plot and conflict? In short How does this alter the course of the story; not only for the good guys but also for the bad guys.

As a perfect example how does Harry Potter win without the elder wand or the protection offered by Lily's death? The simple answer is that by the end of book six he doesn't win. He can't. It's impossible without introducing something of the same nature as the elder wand. Any sword, spell, shield, magical ability that instantly stops Riddle(and all his forces), or even a magical oath that was sworn to a distant relative all serve the same purpose. To allow the good side the ability to win a victory they haven't earned and do not deserve. Truthfully cannon Harry doesn't survive book one without the blood protections JKR introduced in the last chapter.

If you remove those plot devices that allow Harry to survive and win how does he do either? Without the blood protection that allows him to incinerate his professor how does he survive getting the stone at the end of book one? Without his mother's sacrifice how does he not die after taking the killing curse in book seven? Remember that part in Chapter 35 of book seven where Dumbledore says that Riddle is basically tethering Harry to life? According to the cannon story Lily's willing sacrifice saved Harry not from one killing curse but from two. Oh and Harry willingly going out to die provided that same level of protection to everyone in the castle even if he didn't know their names.

Or how about the Elder wand, a wand of such power that it makes the wielder unbeatable, that Harry magically gained control of. Even Harry gaining “mastery” of the Elder wand is a deus ex machina. Dumbledore didn't try and stop Draco on the tower. Dumbledore was tired, delusional, dying, and barely holding his wand and most importantly not fighting or dueling. But a disarming spell under those circumstances is enough to change ownership. Meh … I'll let that slide because Draco did in fact disarm Dumbledore. Remember Dumbledore intended to take the power of the Elder Wand to his grave by arranging for his death at the hands of Snape, it's safe to say that either Snape WOULD have gained mastery of the elder wand or the Elder Wand has a means of determining when it's owner is actually fighting. However here's the problem I run into with this entire train of bad logic. Draco never touched the Deathstick. When Draco was Disarmed at his Home the Deathstick was at Hogwarts which was in Scotland which is roughly around 800 KM (500 Miles) from Malfoy Manor. Yeah I did a google map search on it. To reiterate: Draco never touched the wand, Draco was disarmed eight hours away from the wand, and the wand still magically knows that it has a new master even though Harry hasn't touched it yet.

This doesn't even start to consider the logical problems that follow after Harry's death and resurrection. This deus ex machina further murks up the ending. Point in case. After being hit with a killing curse, talking to a dead man, and leaving a fragment of Riddles soul in the great beyond Harry is (again) magically immune to the Elder wand. He takes a torture curse and doesn't react. He blocks killing curses with shield charms. He reflects the killing curse with his signature disarming spell. In less then fifty pages JKR took every rule in the wizarding world and tossed it out the window.

Within the original story these are the only reason Harry potter and the good guys won. They shouldn't of. Everyone in the castle should have died. Horribly. Twice. Within a kids story that's an acceptable plot device. “The good guys won and everyone lived happily ever after. The end.” Within epic fantasy for the young adult to mature audiences that's not acceptable. Not even a little bit. Even with these plot devices everyone in the castle should have died.

One ultimate wand is not going to stop the amount or the level of forces that Voldemort should have had stationed outside the castle. The entire inner circle (which implies there must be an outer or lower circle of some sort), Werewolves, Giants, Snatchers/mercenaries, Ministry personal and civilians under the imperious curse... simply put the good guys were outgunned and should have been out manned. The best case scenario that follows any rational, logical, or realistic set of rules ends with Harry Potter walking out of Hogwarts alone before having to bury every one he's ever known by hand.

Everyone should be wondering how this all relates back to the first rule of Fanfiction by now. It's actually a simple statement followed by a simple question. The first rule is all about keeping the power level between two sides roughly balanced as a means of keeping conflict both interesting and “tense”. If person A gets stronger, person B must also get stronger by roughly the same amount. One question becomes how do you balance the removal or addition of a deus ex machina? How do you balance the removal or addition of something that best translates in modern English as "god from our hands"? Or in plain English how do you balance that which allowed for the conclusion to happen? How does Frode and the fellowship compensate for Sauron not dying when the one ring is destroyed? How does Luke Skywalker survive the second death star if his father doesn't turn on the emperor? Another and equally valid question is this: Why?

This line of thinking completely ignores another principal (Newton's first law) which is my second, but maybe more important, major beef with the first law of fanfiction. Law I: Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed. In plain English whatever ANYTHING is doing it's going to keep doing until something makes it do something different. If a ball is sitting on the ground it's going to stay sitting on the ground unless something happens. If a plane is falling out of the air it's going to continue falling out of the air until it hits the ground unless something happens. If a person is a jerk their going to keep being a jerk until something or someone makes them stop. If someone is a smoker their going to continue being a smoker until they are either forced to quit or inspired to quit. Sauron can't go looking for the Death Star until he knows that Frodo has a light saber. If Merlin himself took over Harry Potter's body(while adding all his own magical power/talents/skills) Voldemort is still going to treat him like Harry Potter until he has a reason to treat him as anything other than Harry Potter. He has to. Without a reasonable amount of conflict nobody whimsically decides to change anything of importance. That conflict could be something as small as a new piece of information being discovered or as large as a full blown fight that leaves buildings ruined. Anything else is unrealistic,illogical, and irrational.

Oddly enough if you combine the second law of Newtonian physics along with the two previously mentioned you get a great set of rules for anything. As it pertains to writing I give you the following

Law 1: simply put nothing in a story changes unless the author introduces a change. Thereafter the change is introduced every ripple from the change in a story continues changing anything it comes in contact with and continues changing the story in such a manner forever. In simple terms if a character is changed in any manner every interaction the character has with another character, the plot, or any item undergoes a change as well.

Law 2: Mathematically known as F=ma. For the purpose of writing I suggest (F) would represent change(or changes in the situation/character), (m) would equal the character, and (a) would represent the difference, conflict, or interaction that produces the change. If you change a person's dominate hand or eye color the change is permanent but not important enough to make more than a passing comment on. Change a character's personality or history and everything changes in a proportional amount. In essence changes in situations have different impacts and significance. The greater the change/interaction/conflict the greater the change in a person's character. The inverse is also true.

Law 3: Every action has an opposite and equal reaction. Increasing any characters strength can either result in the character losing speed or their primary enemy gaining something of equal value or losing something that was serving as an inhibitor. For example if Frodo becomes a sword master Sauron could get his body back; Sauron doesn't need to get Excalibur. If Luke becomes more capable than Vader than the emperor drops the arrogant mask and goes after him the same way he attacked Yoda; the emperor doesn't have to become twice as strong as he is. He just has to utilize the power he already wields. If Harry Potter becomes capable of fighting the dark lord or Dumbledore on his own than he must not get the elder wand and actually fight not only the dark lord but all the forces the dark Lord already commands. While the "first rule" of fanficition correlates with the above it's misleading. By not take everything into consideration the power balance myth creates haphazard expectations that are illogical and irrational.