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 have my entire family massacred either if I were her). I mean, this is a fandom completely unrelated to your fandoms, but I am rambling because I apparently forgot I could and probably should just vent in my own journal. ><""")

Anyway, tangent aside *coughSORRYcough*, I really liked how you broke down your process step-by-step. :) For me, it's always been a very visceral reaction, and the thinking comes in the aftermath, but I always try my best to be honest with myself about what the characters are actually doing and how honest they are about it. :) It doesn't always work out, but I try. (Except for Laura, because she is clearly magical and just THE BEST AND I WILL LOVE HER FOR ALLLLLLLL MY DAYS!!! - even if I am pretty sure that the writers were at times unsure about what to do with all the awesomeness that had fallen into their figurative laps. *tries to whistle innocently*)

Also, somewhat related (but not quite) the post on Tumblr! The one regarding ethics and morality and "moral" choices based on action and feelings of guilt! JUST YES!!! (I was tempted to PM on Tumblr, but... no energy... ><") That was basically my big thing with first section class when I took Bioethics and they presented us with different variations of the Trolley problem and broke down the different existing moral frameworks, and consequentialism was one of the big ones, and I had lots of hard thinking to do afterwards (and am still thinking on it actually - and then again, the boundaries of the problem presented in Tumblr vs. the trolley - in terms of considerations for agency). :3

Also, random book rec, because talking about Laura and character's motivations and resultant actions: have you ever read Megan Whalen Turner's The Queen's Thief series? If not, the major 'stuff' (LOVELOVELOVE) comes into play mostly in the second book (with the first acting as a set up of sorts), but *trying to whistle innocently again*... You may like it if you check it out. She does a wonderful job of world building, tosses in some interesting mythology, and it's jammed-pack full of incredible characters.

[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 arc? On a strict Watsonian level, I think that it was explained why Laura would act irrationally on this particular issue, and how it affected her to feel like she threw this particular principle out the window and therefore felt morally compromised enough that she considered going through with the election fraud. I'm okay with that; I think it's really good character work to have even the best characters go astray once in a while.

I HAVE A LOT OF THOUGHTS ABOUT CONSEQUENTIALISM. I highly recommend the whole post it links to, and it is definitely relevant to this conversation.

[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 is almost absolutely necessary because even if a character may not necessarily be consistent among different writers, it would be necessary to prove consistency within character for a certain writer, so it would be less easy to just toss out "bad writing" if it proves internally consistent even if not externally so. :3

(I got into X-men mostly as a kid in the 90's watching the re-runs of the original animated cartoon, and I loved the stories and characters. It's also where I fell for my first (technical) redheaded character-love. :3 Interestingly, but X-Men is fascinating in particular because it was among the first, outside of DC's Wonder Woman to really give female-centric storylines a go without relegating them to sidekick status. I still remember the awesomeness that was Storm and the fact that as a leader, she was actually 'better' (in my pov, not meaning to start any wars here are there) in certain cases than the go-to-boy Cyclops. Most of the other cartoons featured female heroes occasionally - tagged on to the central mail heroes (batman and superman), and a lot of this knowledge is outdated however, because I haven't really kept up beyond watching the original Justice League cartoons (in the late 90's/early 00's?). I know Barbara Gordon goes on to her own gig separate from Batman in Birds of Prey, but I have sadly yet to watch/read that. (Not enough time, comic canon is sooooooooooooooooo long and complicated and winds in and out on itself so much.)) Re: fandom you may get involved in, are you referring to X-men? :D If so... comics, movies, or cartoons? :3 (Because they are all QUITE different. LOL Sorry that I continued rambling. ><")

YES!!! :D Let me know if you do find it and what you think of it. ;)

Oh definitely, a lot of the reasons I love Laura is because she so consistently makes complete sense to me, and because she is so very self-aware and self-possessed and all of those things that I aspire to (but consistently fall short of ><") AND BECAUSE SHE IS CLEARLY MAGIC. It's extremely interesting because it adds a whole new dimension even to the fact that the Laura-Gaius relationship/interactions are generally the exceptions that actually PROVE the rule of why I love her so much, because 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) and subconscious conversations about the value of human life). :)

Hee. Sorry, now I'm just rambling. *runs off to dinner*

[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 Roslin seems to have been received by large corners of fandom for dishonesty because of....the motives she always copped to, usually much sooner rather than later. Like, I remember watching one of those "[show] in a few minutes" previews that I think was sanctioned by the network and the narrator said of that moment that "Roslin wants to use the airlock again but Adama says they have to have a trial" when THAT IS THE ACTUAL OPPOSITE OF WHAT HAPPENED. But because she's transparent about even the more difficult parts of her thought processes, and because people would rather take the easy way out and congratulate themselves on liking someone with feel-good step [1] motives rather than look at the messiness of the world in which people have to make step [2] decisions, she gets bagged on. grrr, argh.

[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. ;)

I REMEMBER THAT MIX-UP IN THE RECAP. I did a double-take and had to headdesk a few times, and honestly, she gets the short end of the stick SO MANY TIMES that I really do think people forget how much she did manage to do with and for her goals besides outside of just "saying" the right things. *huggles her*