no, you should not analyze characters based on what they say about themselves.

[pocochina]

This was going to be my Grand Unified Theory of Character Motivations, but I think it bleeds a bit into an even bigger picture of how I generally analyze and evaluate fictional characters, which ended up making clear to me why I spend so much time groaning in frustration when something or other gets panned as being "OOC

Comments

[bleodswean]

Fandom SERIOUSLY needs to take off the rose-coloured glasses in regards to Elijah and apply some of your (TM) Klaus-isms to that character as well. He cleans up divinely....but still...murderous and not human.

I felt Elena's dealings with Jeremy are more along the psychological underpinnings of: her sisterly naivete, her desire to be mother and caregiver to him, her interpretation of vampires as adorable playthings, and her martyr complex that Jeremy is the one she needs to save.

[pocochina]

Fandom SERIOUSLY needs to take off the rose-coloured glasses in regards to Elijah and apply some of your (TM) Klaus-isms to that character as well. He cleans up divinely....but still...murderous and not human.

right? They're vampires! They're wacky like that! Go with it!

I felt Elena's dealings with Jeremy are more along the psychological underpinnings of: her sisterly naivete, her desire to be mother and caregiver to him, her interpretation of vampires as adorable playthings, and her martyr complex that Jeremy is the one she needs to save.

I believe she thinks that's her motivation the first time around, but after she does it again in S3 - when she knew all that she was doing was making him more vulnerable to Klaus or his agents finding him, which is exactly what happened - I think it's pretty clear that this Step (1) stated motivation is actually a rationalization for keeping Jeremy in line as her malleable little Cabbage Patch Doll mascot, so she can uphold her image of herself as martyr and mother and caregiver.

[bleodswean]

Hehehehe, WACKY! We're all smoking the wacky in this current culture with this mad mad love for the fanged. But yes.

Ah, alright, then I am in perfect agreement with your (TM) thoughts about Elena's conscious and subconscious motivations.

Do you think/believe that any of the pros have psychological/profiling consult in the way that say....."Grey's Anatomy" has medical consult and "The Big Bang Theory" has physicist consult?

[pocochina]

We're all smoking the wacky in this current culture with this mad mad love for the fanged.

lol!

Do you think/believe that any of the pros have psychological/profiling consult in the way that say....."Grey's Anatomy" has medical consult and "The Big Bang Theory" has physicist consult?

I actually doubt it, unless it's a show that is about criminal profiling or therapy or something. Often I think this kind of character work isn't even entirely intended, and the best stuff I tend to think couldn't happen with a writer who was too conscious of imposing their POV onto the story. Like, I think the S3 group behind TVD, the early team on SPN, and a critical mass of the team on BSG are/were inhabiting some or all of the characters' POV so thoroughly that they genuinely believed those characters' rationalizations and self-image even as they were producing incredibly consistent storylines that shot those rationalizations to hell. And those stories tend to be fascinating to me in a particular way that the more self-aware narratives...aren't,

[mcjulie]

Also, in real life, people lie about their motivations all the time -- but they usually start out by lying to themselves, so they don't think they're lying. People are mistaken, sometimes in consistent ways. People do things for reasons they don't even understand themselves at the time -- later, if you ask them why, they will tell you -- but they're making that explanation up at the time you ask, and may not resemble their original motivation very much at all. People interpret the behavior of others differently than the exact same behavior in themselves.

Realistic character writing takes all that into account. Their dialog is no more a 100 percent accurate picture of themselves or the world than real-life conversation is.

One of the things about BTVS -- I think that the show as a whole, especially Joss-penned episodes, take an existentialist viewpoint, and we're meant to notice the distance between what people do and what they say, between what they tell you about their motivations and what their motivations appear to be based on

[pocochina]

Yes! and that's what I like best about my favorite shows. There's no such thing as a reliable narrator, in real life or in good fiction. There are characters who come closer to the truth than others, for sure, but everyone has and ought to have their own perspective skewing things to some extent.

[upupa_epops]

Okay, I'm here!

This is a bit tangential, but you know what irks me to no end? People crying "bad writing!" when they see self-proclaimed freedom fighters who -- GASP! -- turn out to be not so democratic. Characters like Tom Branson in Downton Abbey, or Gale in The Hunger Games (I'd say Zarek fits the bill as well, but I have no idea how fandom reacted to Zarek, so obviously I can't use him as an example). The whole point of characters like that is to show that radical freedom fighters have an ugly tendency to try to tell other people how to define, experience, and use freedom. This catch is present in many democratic movements, we see it ALL THE TIME in the real world, and yet somehow people assume that characters would be magically free of this common flaw.

Btw, I love your reading of Elena :). Forever amused that fandom has trouble seeing that Elena is a Puppet Master of the Universe.

[pocochina]

The whole point of characters like that is to show that radical freedom fighters have an ugly tendency to try to tell other people how to define, experience, and use freedom. This catch is present in many democratic movements, we see it ALL THE TIME in the real world, and yet somehow people assume that characters would be magically free of this common flaw.YES. Unlearning your socialization is HARD, IMO, and people who pioneer one critique or another generally have a stinging motivation to do so. Sometimes that motivation, whatever it is, has warped someone a lot, and I think fiction is a great way to explore that interface of individual psychology/broad social ideals, since it's so incredibly loaded and hard to unpack a person-movement in the real world

[upupa_epops]

it goes to show that artists don't need to be on board with the more cynical analysis to create a character that is incredibly realistic and complicatedA loose association: one of my favorite poets, who's a master of rhythm and sound patterns, completely butchers his own work when he reads it out loud XD

[pocochina]

one of my favorite poets, who's a master of rhythm and sound patterns, completely butchers his own work when he reads it out loud XD.

aw. And yeah, it definitely illustrates that there's simply a lot of different skill sets that go into an artistic work, and people don't always or usually get it right.

On my side of the Iron Curtain, you're taught that when such a character appears, you're to wait for the other shoe to drop. I never expect them to be successful: either they end up doing something that "costs them their soul", or they learn that their idealism isn't compatible with reality. I'm always surprised when I realize that people brought up in the Western culture don't necessarily make those assumptions.

I...do not feel like I have the right knowledge set to ask the questions I want to ask about this, but it makes a ton of sense and I would be fascinated to hear more (wrt Zarek or Gale or just generally).

I don't think Elena wants to know how much of a Puppet Master she is. Then she'd have to give up the pleasure of yelling

[obsessive_a101]

Thank you for posting a meta post that has rekindled my love of fandom. (^_^)"

(I should have known better, but I spent the better part of last night *headdesking* as I tried to catch up on the latest X-men news on a board/forum for one of my favorite characters. I was doing my best not to tear my hair out, and this is spectacularly, creepily relevant. (Just because the traumatized teen version of said character does not act in a way "befitting" her adult, mature self by sticking with her "one true love" because of REASONS does not NECESSARILY mean the writers are writing her poorly ><" though, for all I know, they may be... I really avoid reading the actual comics as comics can sometimes be very, VERY messed up, and I really don't bother unless I know what's it's going to be about already, but I am so supremely bothered and creeped out when I see people who are supposed to be fans of her character insulting her because she's avoiding a relationship with her future canon (FOR GOOD REASONS - I would rather not die (repeatedly) or

[pocochina]

Vent all you like! You're not the only X-men fan in this bar. I may not read commentary about this fandom too closely, because I may want to get into it someday, but tbh it's nice to hear my theories hold even in fandoms I don't know, lol.

I have not read The Queen's Thief, but I'm making a library run soon, I'll see if I can't get my hands on it.

Except for Laura, because she is clearly magical and just THE BEST AND I WILL LOVE HER FOR ALLLLLLLL MY DAYS!!

THIS IS COMPLETELY REASONABLE. For me, though, I think a big part of why I latched into Laura so hard was that her 1-2-3 analysis usually lines up? She generally acts rationally and in good faith, and is honest with herself and others about her motivations. And I admire that a lot. The only time I can think of that she didn't so much was [spoilers through S2.5]the abortion ban. But even then, I think it was (a) the very common narrative issue of reproductive rights being discussed with truthy sensationalism rather than accuracy, which will always lead to messiness and (b) a HUGE part of the character's

[obsessive_a101]

LOL - I think it's an interesting case in terms of comic books because the characters, if they are around long enough, gets passed through so many different hands in terms of writing-wise, and writers simultaneously have their own favorites (which may go one of any which ways in terms of story development) and own perspective on the characters that will affect how that character is written and how much air time they will get - from which they have to play to the audience (maintain a certain level of credible consistency with prior writing unless *plot-twist*) and simultaneously provide their own personal additions (or subtractions) to the character as they see fit because that will be how they make their mark on the comic canon. The comic fandom seemingly has so many diverse retcons (and there has been retcons of retcons) and literal multiple (in-canon) verses/AUs that it's simultaneously fascinating (and confusing), which makes for an interesting study among fans, when it comes to "bad writing" and having an analytical tool as above

[pocochina]

No apologies, I always appreciate your rambling!

That's really interesting to me about comic book canon. I do wonder how much latitude comics fandom has to get accustomed to giving creators? Because it's not like television where most of the people involved have had to sit down and hash things out with each other to produce a more or less agreed-upon vision. Whereas the diffuse authors in comics are spread out chronologically and might never even meet each other, or be living in radically different contexts. So how do people resolve jarring discrepancies?

he is very much central to some of her WORST moments (and they push each other like no other on the show BUT THAT'S WHY I LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE THEM!!!), but she's so very honest about it, even if its after the fact (which leads to tumultuous trials and denials of offers to just airlock the little weasel because he's human (even if she wished it were not so at times)YES. I've always found it interesting - by which I mean, generally disingenuous and frequently misogynist - that

[bellonablack]

This is....a perfect meta in that it gets to the core of so much fandom discomfort and conflict.

I mean. Just perfect, because Elena does buy into her own idea, and it's the idea that gets her. I think it's too that morally challenging characters are harder to stan for than the basic 'bad' character ?Like we all know killing is wrong, but if a character is more dimensional, and something we ourselves can buy into --like I did it for love to help you out, only for you--than it's ...more of that step missing, falling down the stairs chart. But I have done this myself to a degree so I appreciate the steps here.

[pocochina]

Glad you liked! The more I think about it, I think characterization is the thing that writers are least likely to fuck up on television shows: it has the widest margin for error because actual people (1) are usually irrational and (2) change with time, and it's least likely to need that margin for error because even just a decent writer can get into a character's perspective and go from there on a subconsious level. Worldbuilding needs to hang together from any POV, because the world exists outside of any one character; the more time goes on the more room there is for plot holes; even if a series wants to have a positive philosophical take-away, implicit bias can sneak in a million ways. But it's characterization people get all defensive about.

[bellonablack]

Worldbuilding needs to hang together from any POV, because the world exists outside of any one character; the more time goes on the more room there is for plot holes; even if a series wants to have a positive philosophical take-away, implicit bias can sneak in a million ways. But it's characterization people get all defensive about