the onion effect, static characters, and bad heroes

[ivy_chan]

Tori posted something about static characters in fiction that got me thinking about them myself, so I'm going to spill my muddled thoughts on their place in fiction. 'Static' characters are characters that don't change or develop over the course of a story. Her post was basically a rant about people who denounce a character due to lack of

Comments

[aerodactylus]

I think it's a little unfair to say Aang had no development at all. If you compare goofy Aang from early S1 to Aang at the end of the series, he isn't exactly the same. I'll concede the point that Aang's biggest flaw is that he avoids problems rather than confronting them, but that's literally part of the nature of his element, something that was probably subconsciously driven into him from birth. I'd say it's fair that a year of adventuring isn't going to reverse those tendencies. Personally, I think it would've been out of character if Aang had simply gone and faced Ozai and killed him the way everyone expected him to, because, well, that's just not him. Having watched the finale a few times, I realized that that's how should've reacted: he's a twelve year old boy, thrown into an unfair position, who comes from an utterly pacifistic background. Of course he's going to freak the fuck out about having to kill someone, even if that someone is evil.

[ivy_chan]

I really don't think it's unfair to say he had no development, because...he had no significant development. Aang is still Aang at the end of the series, complete with wacky goofy hijinks. We see him at more serious times from season one (end) to season three, and his reactions in serious mode are the same from 1-3. His reactions to stress don't change, his mindset doesn't change, and his character journey is almost entirely external: learning the four elements.

The other elements would be a great way to incorporate character growth: each of the elements comes with its own doctrine. Earth is stubborn and resilient, water is adaptable, fire is aggressive. The point of his journey is to not just be an airbender, because he's the Avatar. He brings balance. He embodies all the elements. So, yes, while he was raised to avoid and evade, tons of people throughout the whole series have been trying to teach him how that does not work all the time. (Toph, Bumi, Zuko, Katara.) When Aang ran away the first time, his entire race was genocided and

[aerodactylus]

The lion-turtle thing was really lame, I'm not disputing that. Probably the thing I dislike most about the series was how horribly deus ex machina the ending was.

I guess I don't fault Aang as much for acting the way he does. Personally, I think if I was twelve and faced with the kind of stuff he is, I'd just lose it. I can begrudge him some moments of hesitancy given that.

[ivy_chan]

I think that his stress and his reactions up to the point of him actually leaving were fine, don't get me wrong. I think I would like it more if he didn't choose the worst moment to flee, and if the show didn't keep showing us that he does this at almost every opportunity. (Except for that one time with the village trial. Come on, Aang. Be more like you were in that episode! Learn from the moose lion moment!) If he only reacted that way to humongous points of stress and then learned from his mistakes, I'd be less upset with the character.

Don't get me wrong, I'm also boggling at those buddies of his. I mean...guys. No one says Aang has to kill the Fire Lord. Aang can defeat the guy and then YOU can kill him. Or you can just take him on together.

I guess that goes against the hero mythos, but another point of irritation for me is the idea that the hero has to face that last trial alone, especially when A) it's completely overwhelming and unrealistic for him to do so, and B) in a series where teamwork and friendship is such a key

[hungrytiger11]

This is well written and makes a lot of good points, especially the "onion peel" idea (which would work especially well with villains). I think one could make an exception in some cases where the story really is all about the external adventure (Herge's Tintin comes to mind), but mostly there does need to be growth in the hero too.

[ivy_chan]

Yes, it really isn't a cut and dry rule so much as a general guideline. Some stories really do work well with a static hero (I've never read Tintin, but I'll take your word on it,) and a lot of villains get developed in truly interesting ways.

I like onion peel heroes/heroines as well, and they're usually done in books through the POV of a narrator character. Holmes is kind of an onion.

[ivy_chan]

Thanks. XD

[saralinda]

Villains or antagonists don't require the character growth a hero does because we aren't meant to connect with them in the same way, we aren't meant to feel invested in their struggles. Not to say that a villain should be a posing, mustache-twirling caricature of evil (which is fun sometimes), but they're perfectly fine to leave as the same character throughout the story without any great level of change.

disagree on this point somewhat, like my villains to develop too. depends on situation. would type more but only one hand kid attached to boob

1 thing: interest level of shredder vs stockman (insane in membrane) shred? yawners

[ivy_chan]

I like my villains to develop only in certain storylines. In a hero-focused story, it's better not to shift POV too much. A grey villain or sympathetic villain would be a good one to develop, whereas the evil overlord would be more of an onion-peeler.

Shredder as a villain never interested me. He was too...out there, too in your face evil. Stockman was too goofy. Bishop was my ideal TMNT villain. He was awesome. He had the brains, the style, the tactics, and the whoopass to back it all up.

Although all the villains from Gargoyles would pwn anyone from TMNT. Trufax.

[tori_angeli]

*applauds enormously* I so fully agree! Hey cool, I inspired a literary rant!

[ivy_chan]

Literary rants rock! As do books in general!