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

[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

[obsessive_a101]

Hee... I'm glad? LOL Most of my family has learned to tune me out when I get going - on any subject. :3

Re: comic book canon - and I think that's where the problem in fandom comes in, because people will and can proceed to pick-and-choose what they consider and accept as canon, and the context thing is so very relevant because these are stories that began in the 60's (for X-men at least... I think), which means there were completely different context, issues, and ideas of society and gender and different roles. What I've also seen is fandom proceeding then into discussion of the comics by way of different "epochs" either by way of the decades, or by the primary writer in any given run. (The most recently ended was the Morrison run, for example.) And LOL - So how do people resolve jarring discrepancies? This may be in fact the question that is impossible to answer