Read on Twitter
THIS. this is a super important part about analyzing characters. It& #39;s not just who has flaws or is the healthiest, it& #39;s about who the narrative gives the most screentime and most "cool" moments and memorable lines. Who& #39;s quotable? Giffable? Who gets the music to swell? https://twitter.com/biggestjoel/status/1293177302159785985">https://twitter.com/biggestjo...
This is one of the issues I see with a lot of talk when it comes to writing lady characters. I& #39;m huge on humor and snark, and often times even the good Complex women written get very few moments where they get to have a great one liner or be the one on Top of the scene
Obviously this isn& #39;t always the case, but there is this trend where men in stories can be assholes and also forces of uncaring nature, who move and change the plot and do so in memorable ways. Women who are assholes are often much more "realistically" dealt with.
I often think of Spike from the tv show Buffy. There are a lot of flaws of that show but the guy was undeniably popular, and his entire act was "I& #39;ve got a big heart, unswaying confidence, funny lines, and I& #39;m also Incredibly Evil."
And I have very rarely seen a woman character written in the same way who is also allowed to remain as pragmatically evil as Spike did for like, five dang seasons! Granted there are some tropes you could look at that would come off differently due to trends, but like--
I wish we stopped measuring characters solely on what their text says and more on how the camera frames them, the cool moments they are given, the ones who come into plot by choice and mess everything up on their terms, and might even come out on top because of it.
There& #39;s a lot of different dynamics that go into why one character is loved and one is hated, and prejudice/internalized prejudice is absolutely a thing, but I often see people completely miss how characters are given different roles in the story not just in the literal plot--
but in the emotional beats they are expected to hit, and the thematic points they represent. You could have a completely garbage person with No Good Traits who people will adore if the plot validates them--or gives them Humanity. But not just any humanity, Powerful Humanity
Rick Sanchez is depressed and abusive but the dude is powerful. He has a surprising amount of agency for a story that& #39;s all about how nothing in the world matters. He is the reason the plot happens, he is often the reason the ending is happy or sad. His choices ripple across.
And fiction is a metaphor. People don& #39;t look at a character and judge them based on how Competent they are or how much Friend Material they are. They judge them based on the emotions they relate to, even if the circumstances are different.
A lot of fiction involves murder. Most of us have not directly murdered someone. But we still relate to characters who do this and have assorted Feelings over it, because we relate to the metaphor. We don& #39;t see the dissonance between this, and honestly, why would most people?
We& #39;ve had over the top fictional situations for centuries. We have gotten obnoxiously good at separating fiction from reality to the point that we& #39;ll cheer along for rebellions and never once think about the politics of the real world
But we can& #39;t seem to comprehend that people might like characters for what they represent in the story as a mover and shaker, as opposed to their direct traits as would exist in the real world.
And this isn& #39;t necessarily to defend Rick stans or the Breaking Bad stans before my time. But TBH if Rick was a character written and created with Me in mind? A queer nd genderbleh individual? I& #39;d probably adore them.
I have seen a few characters who have similar amoral/pragmatic/uncaring or hates caring traits, and I often latch onto them easily. Grunkle Stan, Entrapta, Sarah from the DOA webcomic, are all characters more made for me and I relate to them a lot even when I& #39;m nothing like them
Rick and Morty and Breaking Bad are written for a specific demographic, and they eat it up not because they see the high points, but because they relate to the power fantasy of their flaws being something to be feared, or not getting in the way of their desires.
(and I do think it& #39;s telling the bojack horseman stanning, which used to be said hand in hand with Rick and Morty, died down a LOT as the show took a way more cerebral take)
And as a sociological sidenote, this is amusingly is also something I realized about religion too, when I was learning about polytheistic religions. I remember asking "but why would someone worship a god who has so many bad traits, even compared to the rest of their pantheon"
And like a lightbulb going off I realized, well, one what is "bad" is a tad cultural and not objective, but two, those traits I saw as "bad" were the traits the person related to, or saw as something they needed at the time. It wasn& #39;t about the objective role model
This was about the deity they found complimented their own failings and strengths. And in that moment I realized how limited my understanding of the people and morals we seek out was. And not to get TOO philosophical, but I do think religion and fiction has a lot of overlap
And not because "lol religion is fake" but because we are dealing with the metaphorical. Things we cannot poke and prod at in front of us. We& #39;re dealing with personal relationships you can never see unless you can read my mind.
And realizing that folks might not seek out the Big Good (or the Secret Big Good) but instead the Relatable Pillar (with agency) is a very important part of story analysis as well as just--approaching sociological dynamics as a whole.
Also to clarify, agency looks different for everyone and isn& #39;t always about having free reign or free choice in every situation, but can also look like providing a set of choices inherently appealing or innately understandable to said person
