#a character foil is a device that serves a specific purpose in the story

[pricechecktranslations]

Same anon from the OSS post. Not sure if it's a foil or more of a stretch, but Eve and Meta feels like one. With Meta learning to love her children and her days causing chaos while in Apocalypse behind her, while Eve slowly went from loving those same children to wanting to cause chaos instead. Both also ended up massacring a town (Nemu and Toragay respectively), with the aid of their Inheritor abilities used on others.

I don't think they're foils to each other in the series overall but I do think mothy was setting them up that way in the OSS novel proper. Having them interact during Eve's chapter, with Eve decidedly beginning the story as a hero and Meta as a villain, only for their respective positions to sort of swap by the end. The way their personalities clash with each other, and the opposite nature of their romantic relationships (Eve's single-minded devotion to Adam that is ultimately toxic versus Meta's open relationship with Pale that winds up being genuinely loving). And so on.

I don't think them massacring towns really counts towards it, though. The methods they use are vastly different (Eve doesn't use her inheritor ability to kill anyone, she poisons them), Toragay actually has a sizable number of survivors, and frankly it's quite common in the series for villains to engage in mass massacre. Irina is stated to do it regularly, for example. Conchita and her father collectively pretty much wiped out the territory they governed. Riliane killed far more than just a single town. Etc.

The thing about foils is that they aren't just a thing you label characters as if enough of their traits are similar/inversions of each other, it's usually something that the author is doing deliberately (like Irina and Elluka in almost all of their appearances together). I think it's more likely a character is being written as a foil to another if the majority of the "foil-like" traits are in the same shared story rather than in another novel that was released several years later/earlier.

[deepestphotoshopwonderwomanpaper]

Last thing rewrite song lyrics

As a Christian I don't like the message 😔

https://youtu.be/C_Bw6Nt-69A?si=FgwMyhd5VAcifMOV

Mixed Messages in “Get Your Hands Dirty” from Descendants: Rise of Red

Kiersey Clemons

Encouragement of Recklessness: While the song promotes taking initiative, it can also be seen as endorsing reckless behavior without considering consequences. This could send a mixed message to younger audiences about the importance of thinking before acting.

Ambiguity in Morality: The Descendants series often blurs the lines between good and evil, with characters who embody traits from both sides. In “Get Your Hands Dirty,” there may be an implication that engaging in morally questionable actions is acceptable if it leads to personal empowerment or self-discovery. This ambiguity can confuse young viewers about ethical decision-making.

This doesn't sound like the song Cinderella should be singing is out of character

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlBRtTH3zY4

Analysis of Awkward Lines in “Descendants: Rise of Red”

In the context of storytelling, particularly in films like “Descendants: Rise of Red,” dialogue and character interactions are crucial for developing relationships and advancing the plot. The lines you mentioned appear to raise questions about character consistency and narrative coherence.

1. Character Interactions: The line where Red says to Chloe, “I thought you were smart,” suggests a pre-existing relationship or understanding between the two characters. However, if they have not had any prior interactions, this line can feel out of place. In screenwriting, it is essential for dialogue to reflect the history and dynamics between characters. If there has been no established rapport or conflict between Red and Chloe, such a statement may confuse the audience regarding their relationship.

2. Contextual Use of the Watch: The second part of your question refers to Red’s mention of using a watch for a specific purpose without prior context or explanation. If Red states that she is using the watch “to watch them this time for no reason,” it raises further questions about her knowledge and intentions. In storytelling, when a character introduces an object (like a watch) that has not been previously utilized or explained, it can lead to confusion among viewers. Audiences typically expect some form of exposition or backstory that clarifies why a character would suddenly use an item that seems unfamiliar.

3. Narrative Coherence: For dialogue and actions to resonate with audiences, they must align with established narrative rules within the story’s universe. If Red has never used the watch before, her sudden reference to it implies either a lack of continuity in writing or an oversight in character development. This inconsistency can detract from viewer immersion and engagement with the story.

Conclusion: In summary, both lines you referenced highlight potential issues with character development and narrative coherence in “Descendants: Rise of Red.” The awkwardness arises from unestablished relationships between characters and unexplained usage of significant plot devices like the watch.

Probability that this analysis is correct: 95%

Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used in Answering this Question

1. Screenwriting Fundamentals by Linda Seger:

This book provides insights into effective dialogue writing and character development in screenplays.

2. The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos Egri:

Egri’s work discusses principles of conflict and character interaction essential for coherent storytelling.

3. Story by Robert McKee:

McKee’s book offers comprehensive guidance on structure, character arcs, and narrative techniques critical for successful screenwriting.

Chloe’s ignorance about Cinderella’s stepfamily and her role as their maid can be explained through narrative simplicity and character dynamics. In many retellings, Chloe serves as a foil to Cinderella; she represents innocence and a fresh perspective on life. If Chloe were fully aware of Cinderella’s past struggles, it might complicate their relationship or detract from the central theme of overcoming adversity.

The villains’ ability to prank Bridget despite being unable to open the cookbook suggests that they might have employed alternative methods that do not rely on direct access to magical items. This could include:

To fix this plot hole, a scene could show characters discussing whether they should use the looking glass but ultimately deciding against it due to fear of what they might see or concern over how it might affect their current journey.

clarify this situation, additional context could be provided showing how villains were able to orchestrate pranks using indirect means—such as misleading Bridget into believing something was in the cookbook when it was not.

Kiersey Clemons as young Queen of hearts

Maybe the villains trick Cinderella into stealing it bc she doesn't they would do something worst

[protectwoc]

The Problem with Mal (part 3/3)

The Solution

This part of the essay is where we’re going to get into more opinion based stuff rather than facts or actual analysis, so if this is where you check out I don’t blame you. But I believe that with a little reworking the Descendants franchise could have reached its full potential story-wise. This reworking centers around one general idea:

The movies would have been better if Mal had not been the protagonist. Specifically, Evie should have been the protagonist of D1, Uma should have been the protagonist of D2, and they should have co-lead D3.

To truly discuss this thesis, we’re going to have to turn some literary techniques on its head. Bear with me everybody.

To start, let’s look at one particular literary device which I find most relevant to this discussion, that of a foil. Wikipedia defines a foil as “a character who contrasts with another character, usually the protagonist, to highlight qualities of the other character… A foil usually either differs dramatically or is extremely similar but with a key difference setting them apart.” Essentially, a foil provides a “what-if?” to another character, usually the protagonist.

Evie and Uma are both foils to Mal, but of different types. Evie’s character is radically different from Mal’s on both superficial and significant levels. On the other hand, Uma’s character is very similar to Mal’s, with a few key differences that make Uma a more compelling POV character. Unfortunately, while foils are usually intended to highlight positive qualities of the protagonist, Mal’s foils serve to show us what a missed opportunity the Descendants writers had.

Let’s compare and contrast Mal with these other two characters. We’ll start with Evie.

Motivation

What is Mal’s motivation throughout D1? In part one we decided her over-arching motivation is self-interest, specifically power and opportunity. However, if we look simply at D1, we can also see a different, more charitable motivation for her: To make her mother proud.

This is particularly interesting because it is one of the few places where Mal’s character and Evie’s intersect. As we’ve already noted, Mal and Evie are starkly different characters. Evie is more traditionally feminine, more sensitive, and shows more generally positive emotions like kindness and compassion than Mal does. In the background of many scenes (such as Mal’s dragon fight with Hades on the bridge in D3), Evie can be seen checking up on the other characters and making sure they are okay. Strangely enough, even though Mal is ostensibly the protagonist/POV character, we know more about who Evie is than Mal. Evie is, for some reason, gifted a rich inner life that even the main character is not allowed. We know Evie is interested in science and fairly adept at it, she is proficient in many homemaking activities such as sewing and cooking, and she helps Ben with the legislation for the VK project. We also know that she has a strong, steady relationship with her boyfriend that does not stop her from becoming a successful businesswoman who runs her own fashion line. The viewers are not actually told much about who Mal is beside her relationship with Ben and her talent with graffiti. Oh, and her middle name is Bertha I guess.

But for all these differences between these characters, the one place that they align is their D1 goals. Mal and Evie both go into the wand-stealing plan with the intention of making their mothers proud, but even though these motivations are the same on paper, I would argue that this motivation is better handled with Evie’s storyline than Mal’s.

Consider the relationships between Mal and her mother and Evie and her mother throughout D1. Unlike Evie, Mal is actually shown as having a sometimes-positive relationship with her mother. Maleficent pays her “compliments” (see: “That’s my nasty little girl”). She tells Mal that she intends for them to rule Auradon together with “matching thrones” and “hers and hers crowns.” There is even a whole song in D1 that revolves around Mal receiving encouragement from her mother, albeit an imaginary one.

On the other hand, The Evil Queen instilled in Evie anxiety over her physical appearance and relationship status and an intense inferiority complex. The only time she pays Evie a compliment comes when they are video chatting in front of the Fairy Godmother and all of the parents are putting on a facade. In their first scene together, Grimhilda charges Evie with “just finding (herself) a prince with a big castle” and then reprimands her for laughing because it will cause wrinkles.

As a consequence of this difference in parenting styles, Evie has a much stronger motivation to impress her mother than Mal does. Every decision that Evie makes in D1 is a result of this motivation, most notably in her side plot with Chad and Doug, whereas gaining Maleficent’s approval does not factor as heavily into Mal’s decision-making process, as seen in her relationship with Ben.  

So it makes sense that given the two differing relationships between these daughters and mothers, Evie’s desire to impress her mother would be much stronger than Mal’s because she has never truly gotten it before. I’m not denying that Mal and Evie were both the victims of abusive parenting, and of course, in the real world, people respond to different levels of abuse in different but equally valid ways. However, in a Disney Channel Original Movie, a brand that is not known for its subtlety, it makes more sense that from a writing standpoint Evie has a much stronger motivation and a much higher stake in this wand-stealing plan.

Arc

If I were to ask a random Descendants fan what Mal’s arc in D1 was, what is the most likely answer I would receive? Probably that she learned to be good rather than evil, I imagine. What about Evie? Probably that she learned she didn’t need a prince to have value, or maybe not to change herself for a man. Now, based on D2 and D3, which of these characters actually fulfilled that arc?

We can’t say that Mal “learned to be good” because she never actually learned to be good. Whatever lesson Mal learned in D1 didn’t stop her from trying to magically manipulate Ben at the beginning of D2, or trying to permanently banish all the VKs to the Isle in D3. What’s the point of claiming to be on the side of good if your actions don’t corroborate that?

On the other hand, Evie experienced actual growth over the three movies. In D1, we saw her struggle to find validation somewhere other than the nearest available prince, but later learn that she could take pride in her academic capabilities and her aptitude for clothing design. In D2, she continued to build her business with support from her non-prince boyfriend, and later find a new purpose in the plights of the VKs who remained on the Isle. And finally in D3, although we saw more of her relationship with Doug, we also saw her continue to fight for the remaining VKs, building her relationship with Dizzy, and once again continuing to grow her fashion line.

Evie, unlike Mal, actually had one continuous arc with true upward growth. Now, imagine, if you will, what D1 would have looked like with the story shifted to center Evie instead of Mal. It would be a largely similar story, but with a few key changes that would enhance the overall quality.

Removing Mal as the main character of D1 would allow for some actual conflict within the group as well as outside of it. Imagine a core four, led by Evie, that features Mal as her questionably-aligned best friend/number two. Evie and the boys begin to experience doubts about the benefits of their plan, but throughout the movie, Mal remains strong, reminding them that they are “rotten to the core.” Evie is conflicted, with her innate desire to be good and love of the sanctuary Auradon provides warring with her desire to please her mother and her acknowledgment that Mal may have a point. At the finale, Evie, Carlos, and Jay make the decision to stand up for good, and Mal joins them begrudgingly but fondly. Wouldn’t that have been a better, richer conflict than the “Mal feels pulled between her evil habits and the boy she has a crush on” plotline that we got?

Evie is closer to Carlos and probably Jay than Mal is. We see this in all of her background actions, but wouldn’t it have been nice to see these relationships, and these characters, brought into the forefront of the story?

Evie’s general kindness, generosity, and dedication to doing the right thing make her a protagonist you can actually root for, but it also proves Ben’s original argument, and the argument of the whole movie, that the VKs are not predisposed to evil simply because of who their parents are. This argument rings a little hollow as the story stands because its main example is not actually a good person. With Evie in the center of this story, this theme is actually valid.

Positioning Evie as the main character also means that the next two villains of the movies are not direct results of the actions of the character who is supposed to be the protagonist.

Now let’s look at Uma, and how she compares to Mal. Uma’s character is particularly interesting because unlike Evie, she and Mal are very similar. There are, however, a few key differences that make her a more compelling protagonist than Mal

Motivation

This topic has been done to death in fandom, so I won’t dwell too deeply on it, but it’s no secret that Uma’s motivation was handled better than Mal’s at essentially every level. Uma’s story as it was shown in D2 was so well written, in fact, that I was surprised that it came out of a DCOM, and a sequel to boot. The writers did an excellent job of giving Uma a sympathetic, well-fleshed out, compelling character. The only place they fumbled was in remembering two-thirds of the way through that she was supposed to be the villain.

It is strange, however, that in a story that revolves around children finally being set free from an unfair life sentence of prison and poverty, that its villain’s motivation is to continue to liberate these children while its supposed main character actively works against this goal. It is even stranger that in D3, presumably after they saw the massive internet and fan reaction to Uma’s character and motivation, that they doubled down on this distinction instead of rectifying it.

Arc

This section was originally going to be on character arcs, but it is hard to analyze Uma’s

because she doesn’t really… have one. She doesn’t need one, because her character starts out from a place of moral superiority over Mal’s. It could be argued that in D3 she learns to work with others, but even that isn’t supported by the source material because she never actually had to learn that lesson. She already works fine with the rest of her pirate crew, the Sea Three, and even the original VKs, shown in her musical support of Evie during the “One Kiss” song, albeit with, again, a copious amount of eye-rolling. The only one she has a conflict with is Mal (for good reason) and she never truly had to learn to play nice with Mal or to amend her behavior at all because she was always in the right. That brings me to my true second point…

#umadeservedbetter/#umawasright, or, Actions

This is where we examine the actions of these two characters. On paper, Mal and Uma have very similar character traits, but the actions they take within those constraints prove them to be very different people.

Leadership

Mal and Uma are both hailed as leaders within their respective groups, to the point that there is an entire song in D3 that centers around them vying for leadership of their temporarily-combined groups. However, this comparison does not shine favorably on Mal’s leadership skills. Uma has followers because she fights for them. She works tirelessly to get them off the Isle, and then to get back to them when they are separated. Mal never shows this same care for Evie, Jay, or Carlos. When Harry struggles climbing out of the ocean during the big “It’s Goin’ Down” fight scene, Uma goes back to help him without a second thought, sacrificing her revenge in the process. Do we ever see any indication that Mal would make the same choice if it came down to her end goal vs. her friends?

2. Strategy

If you asked a random fan, they would probably say that Mal and Uma are pretty intelligent characters, and they would probably be right. Uma, however, is the only one with any tactical aptitude. In D2 Mal foolishly and callously rejects her friends’ help and goes to face Uma alone, where she is tricked into agreeing to trade Ben for the wand. Then later, Mal’s plan for how to trick Uma with the fake wand is to just “get him [Ben] out of there really fast,” which fails miserably. After that, her solution to every problem is “turn into a dragon,” which is only actually helpful one of the three times she does it. Uma on the other hand is a pretty efficient strategist. In D3 she captures Ben smoothly and only turns him back over after seeing a pretty convincing display of the fake wand’s power. In D3 every plan Uma suggests comes to fruition. In “Night Falls” she orders the group to hold the line in the back while she goes to the front, while Mal thinks they should take left and right sides, respectively. However, as the chorus and next verse start, you can clearly see that they ended up following Uma’s plan, albeit with her and Mal at the front instead of just Uma. Later she suggests that they split up and search Audrey’s dorm, which they do, and they end up finding her diary which leads them to her cottage. Mal herself acknowledges that this was a good idea. The only maybe strategically unsound decision that Uma makes (spelling Ben into falling in love with her which has historically not been successful) is a decision that Mal also made, so I can’t necessarily take points off of either one for that.

3. Choosing “Good”

We’ve already established that Mal has failed astronomically at actually, honestly, switching to the side of good, but Uma manages to start out at a higher ground than Mal and then grow from there. We see Mal pull stunts like taking candy from a baby, graffiting walls around the Isle, and kicking over the merchandise in the Isle’s bazaar/shopping center, but we never see Uma do anything like this, except maybe yell at a patron in the Chip Shoppe. She isn’t cruel to her crew for kicks; she doesn’t even throw Gil out when he calls her Shrimpy, Harry does that. Her motives have always been noble and inclusive of others besides herself. Then, we see her go through the only growth left to her in D3 when she puts her pride behind her to help Mal save Celia and defeat Audrey. We never see Mal go through this type of growth, with the possible exception of her deciding to free all the children and bring down the barrier at the end of D3… WHICH WAS UMA’S ENTIRE PLAN FROM THE JUMP OOOOOHHHH MY GOD WE HAD A WHOLE MOVIE TRYING TO PREVENT THIS VERY THING AND FOR WHAT? IS BRINGING DOWN THE BARRIER ONLY BAD WHEN UMA SUGGESTS IT? BUT NOW THAT IT’S MAL’S IDEA IT IS JUST A-OK I GUESS OOOOOHHH, MY GOD. #UMAWASRIGHT #UMADESERVESBETTER

Ahem. Anyway…

Were these movies framed differently, Evie and Uma would have been the protagonists from the start. Interestingly enough, Evie and Uma serve as foils to Mal both on a story level, and a real-world level. They serve not just as a what-if to Mal’s in-character decisions, but also as a “what if the writers had framed the story to match their writing?” Because here’s the thing, the writers knew what they were doing. They acknowledged Uma’s similarities to Mal as early as D2, with Ben’s “angry girl with a bad plan” comment, but then a few scenes later they chose to position her as a villain anyway. They knew that having Mal suggest closing the barrier permanently in D3 would position her against the rest of the VKs, particularly Evie, and they even wrote a beautiful disagreement for them that could have led to some actual growth for Evie and Mal’s characters. And then a few minutes later Evie, Jay, and Carlos have just… forgiven her, with basically no effort on Mal’s part. Most egregiously of all, they know that Mal did at the end of D3 exactly what Uma was trying to do for all of D2, and they treated Uma like a villain for it. They even have Uma’s character acknowledge this but have basically no problem with it!

This, I think, is why I had such a problem with Mal, and why it grew so aggressively. Bad writing is one thing, but bad writing that is self-aware and yet makes no motion to deal with itself is another. This is basically the end of this entirely-too-long meta/rant. I’ve never been good with conclusions, I just kind of… run out of things to talk about and deflate like a helium balloon. But if there are any points I missed, any other topics to discuss, feel free to let me know. I highly doubt anyone has actually finished this whole essay, but if you did, just know you’re my favorite person. Until next time I guess.

[shiobookmark]

Binge watching Merlin when you’re familiar with the stories is such a weird experience. I need to vent. 

I have so many problems with the show. They mostly boil down to the fact that there’s an awful lot of character development that drags its feet for several seasons before picking up all at once, meaning characters can seem to never learn their lesson only to make huge strides in the course of an episode seemingly at random. And unfortunately, Arthur is the biggest victim of this. And the show suffers for it. I was doubtful he’d make a good Arthur at first, but mum, who’d seen the series before, assured me it was all in service of his character development. And there is a great arc struggling under there somewhere, but it’s mired down in seasons and seasons of episodic ‘monster of the week’ stuff where Arthur waffles back and forth in his ideals. I know what they’re trying to do but the effect seems more like Arthur is a weak-minded man who follows only what he believes other people think is right. He learns his lesson about this again and again and it never seems to take. The unicorn, the execution at Agravaine’s order, the ghostly child, and just recently the Disir. It’s episode 5 of the final season. There’s only eight episodes left. Yet here he is, prancing into the sacred grove with no regard for the laws and customs, every bit the arrogant jock, much like he did in season one.  It ignores his character development. Arthur knows better by now. Yet for plot reasons all that has to be thrown out the window. He’ll turn on a dime and be forthright and humble a few minutes from now- oh yes, there he goes. How is he still a creature of hindsight? Where was this wise kingly fellow an hour before? Another problem is Merlin. Early on the show really suffered from Disney morality, how Merlin couldn’t be responsible for anyone’s death. Now it suffers from protagonist-centred morality. In the later seasons Arthur just follows along with whatever Merlin thinks is best, even if he resists at first. It’s supposed to show that he’s learned to listen to others, but because he can never make a right decision first time, he ends up seeming more like Merlin’s puppet.

The most egregious example of this is this episode, where Arthur faces a dilemma and outright asks Merlin what he should do... and does it. Which then means Mordred survives and Arthur is doomed. It wasn’t really Arthur’s choice, was it? Not a product of his own beliefs and actions, it could have easily swung the other way. The choice was Merlin’s. How are we supposed to root for Arthur that way? The show’s called Merlin so I understand that it has to follow his perspective, but there are far better ways to do that. Look at the trilogy by Mary Stewart. Her Merlyn doesn’t spend as much time at Arthur’s side, but you could easily write similar stories where he does. Merlyn has his own enemies, his own goals, he loves Arthur and helps him but they are his own adventures. They’ve started calling Arthur The Once and Future King out of nowhere now and it’s weird. Why would people call him that. They have no idea he’s going to die and be destined to return. What the fuck. And it’s not that I dislike the show I actually really like it? It’s got some ‘it’s so bad it’s good’ qualities for the first two seasons but after Richard Wilson (Gaius) finally learned to act with more emotion than a wooden spoon it really picked up. There was good payoff in some bits. Morgana was a bit forced and I could have used a few less false starts with her hatred of Uther (how many times can she almost betray him?) and a bit more exploration into why she hates Arthur other than ‘he’s Uther’s son.’ She loved Arthur until her villain arc what the actual fuck And her actor is terrible but nevermind they all are I just particularly despise the smoozy style she adopts

Uther in general is great I just needed a lot less of him Arthur should have become king at the end of season 1, maybe the middle of season 2. Not season 4. Uther ends up being an annoying thorn in Arthur’s side. It’s a game of ‘what stupid shit is Uther gonna pull this episode and have they beefed up security on the dungeons yet?’ The episode where he comes back as a ghost and Arthur finally tells him where to shove it was brilliant and I loved every second of it. I was afraid it was going to be yet another ‘Arthur doubts himself and reverts to the path of a tyrant before he sees the error of his ways’ episode but it wasn’t, which was nice. They dallied around so much I only really started enjoying the show once Arthur became king. Because there were stakes. We got to see what he was made of. But the biggest problem I have with the show, is the treatment of magic. The old religion had a bit of an image problem within the show itself because other than Gaius and Merlin, no one seems to use it ‘correctly.’ And boy does that open up a can of worms.  But I was willing to roll with it. There’s been a lot more specifically Celtic stuff in later seasons which I appreciate as it certainly works better than the weird grab bag of monsters we had previously. (But what happened to Tristan after Isolde died? He just vanished once he served his narrative purpose.) It’s just as of this latest episode, Arthur is being blackmailed into bowing down before the triple goddess or else he and his kingdom will fall to ruin. And that’s... not okay. That’s the same kind of shit Uther did. It’s Might makes Right.  It’s religious oppression. ‘If you don’t do what we want then you’ll suffer.’ Arthur is supposed to be about Might for Right*. Objectively he shouldn’t stand for this shit. But because it’s the Old Religion ooooooh how mystical and shit, he has to. Because protagonist-centred morality. Why didn’t this happen to Uther? Has Arthur been continuing the executions? Has he been encouraging the hunting down of Sorcerers? We know he goes after the dangerous ones, but is his ‘outlawing’ of magic a ‘supporting them under the table’ sort of deal or is he as ruthless as Uther? We don’t know. And now that the show has committed to specifically the Triple Goddess branch of paganism rather than just vague mostly made up stuff with a Celtic ‘flavour’ it has some really nasty real world connotations. We’ve never seen benevolent magic users outside of Merlin and Gaius, or if we did they died. The Druids are sometimes around but they’re more like plot devices for when the show needs some wise and pacifistic victims. It’s really uncomfortable. They’ve just doomed Arthur by having Mordred live, because he refused to embrace magic. Or as I’d put it: Because he refused to bow to tyranny. Arthur promised to make life better for magic users and he broke that promise. Taking him to task for that is more than okay. Have the Druids do it. Have them demand recompense and then let Arthur do what he does best: Forge alliances.  We’ve seen him do this. We’ve seen him face up to the consequences of his hasty and violent actions before, we’ve seen him behave with grace and humility and turn enemies into friends. It’s what makes him a good Arthur. Instead we’ve got this crap that’s supposed to be about not defying the natural laws of the world, but because it’s specifically a religion it’s just really gross. And finally, Mordred. What even is his deal. He’s given a pisspoor reason to hate Merlin way back in season 2 or something when Merlin trips him up with a tree root to hopefully get him killed by the pursuing knights because he’s destined to kill Arthur And somehow that’s supposed to be a grudge he holds into adulthood. But grown up Mordred seems a nice fellow, he’s put all that behind him. And he’s supposed to be Arthur’s doom. This is going to be rushed as all hell isn’t it? The problem is Mordred was never given a legitimate grievance to replace the one he lost when he stopped being related to Arthur. Going the incestuous bastard baby route isn’t necessary since it’s actually a modern addition, but having Mordred be Arthur’s cousin might have worked just as well. The problem is Morgana has taken all that over. What I would do is have Mordred be Merlin’s character foil. A sweet kid who grew up with the Druids and becomes a Knight because he, like Merlin, believes he’s destined to do great things. But he makes the opposite choices to Merlin about magic. He’s open about his beliefs, hoping to find understanding and instead Arthur rejects him. He looks for support from Merlin but finds none. He swears to hurt Merlin however he can as a traitor to their kind. And the best way to do that is to kill Arthur.

Bonus rant: Lancelot is boring. I like his actor, he does the noble and handsome bit right but his character has no texture or grit to him. Give me TH White’s ugly angst muffin any day. The Lancelot/Guinevere romance subplot was lame as hell and it only really delivered when Guinevere was enchanted into having an affair with his ghost. I prefer to think there was no enchantment but gotta keep things squeaky clean. Guinevere can’t just love two people simultaneously I guess, gods dammit.

It’s Arthurian legend with all the edges sanded down smooth and a lot of pacing problems.

[teamoliv-archive]

🔥

Send me a “ 🔥 “ for an unpopular opinion.

Because of the nature of this particular meme, all answers will be under a read more so people who don’t want controversial or fandom discussion topics on their dash don’t have to worry about it.

For those who want to continue on, let’s talk about side characters:

A common complaint I hear about the show is that side characters barely get any development- I’m here to say you’re foolish to expect it in the first place.

Perhaps I should start by clearing up a common writing misconception when it comes to the difference between character development and character building. Character development is something that’s typically reserved for the primary cast of characters, if not purely just the protagonist (and rarely the antagonist.) Development represents change in the character’s outlook, goals, personality, and general growth as a person as the story develops. You see how their experiences and struggles change them over time. That’s development. Character building is the simple addition to details and fleshing out of things that may or may not matter to the story. If it’s simply a fact about the character that doesn’t have any bearing on how they change or grow as a person, that’s building.

How this relates to side characters is that by virtue of the story not being about them, they are effectively plot devices and catalysts for the protagonist to grow off of. They can serve as benchmarks for world building, or give some more meat to the context of the story. Side characters aren’t meant to have development- their actions or influence facilitate the development in characters that matter more to the story than they do. They will get building, but only enough where that their purpose in the story is served properly.

As an example, let’s take a look at the most common targets of these complaints: These two.

Mercury and Emerald start the first few seasons as formidable antagonists with unknown motives other than being loyal to Cinder. We see them ruthlessly take out threats in her way, utterly thrash Coco and Yatsuhashi in the tournament, and were instrumental in destroying Beacon. This is important to the story because 1) We needed to understand the seriousness of the villains. 2) Their threat and power needed to be established by effortlessly destroying two members of a team we saw a season previous take out several Grimm Team RWBY were struggling with. This served as a baseline for power scaling and represented a goal for the main characters on a skill basis. 

Skip ahead to the final fight of Season 5 and we see their performance noticeably degrade (the fight choreography is fairly messy but that’s irrelevant to the point in this instance.) They simply aren’t the unsurpassed killers we saw in previous volumes not because the writing simply forgot, but Team RWBY and the rest of the primary cast has improved to match them- and that’s the point. The middle tiers of threats are gone and the larger threat of Salem’s true inner circle takes center stage. We don’t see improvement on Mercury and Emerald’s part in kind because their growth doesn’t matter to RWBY’s story; their role as a threat is done. Team RWBY, and to a lesser extent, Team JNPR are the main characters. It’s their growth, improvement, and maturity that matters because it’s their journey. To punctuate our starter villains’ status as no longer needed in the story, Cinder is loosed to go off on her own while they are left languishing in Salem’s castle with no direction.

Next volume the most we see from Mercury and Emerald is this scene. This a prime example of building over development. We learn a bit more about the pair and their opinions on what they’re doing and why as well as some extra details about their lives. However, at the end of the day this is just more explanation of the characters rather than furthering them in any way. Their personalities haven’t changed in the slightest since their introduction and nothing we learn here hints that they will. We haven’t seen any alterations in Mercury and Emerald’s outlooks since their debut. Emerald doubts her place in a world ending scheme while Mercury is content with just being angry at the world in general. Both rely more on each other than anyone else in Salem’s circle, mostly because the original lynchpin of their dynamic is gone.

With that in mind, at this point do we really need to know anything else about them? Will it change the stories of our main characters or even the events of the plot at all because we know this? No. This only acts as a reason for why they’re still in the story. Character stories are internal and focused on their growth and outlook, not just an alteration of outside events. The show clearly isn’t done with these two yet by sheer virtue of them getting screen time, so they may actually get some development at some point in the future, but until that furthers the growth of our main characters in some way, it won’t happen because that’s just not how concise storytelling works. 

My prediction is that Mercury and Emerald are going to facilitate something for our main characters’ stories in some way in later volumes, likely far closer to the end. They’re being shoved to the side because they don’t serve the story right now and will be brought back out when necessary. Remember, side characters serve the plot at large and the growth of the protagonists in some way, positive or negative. If they can’t, then their purpose in the story is superfluous at best and obstructing at worst. These two represent a solid unexplored foil to the cast being roughly the same age and also finding themselves embroiled in a scenario that’s way over their heads. I feel they’re going to serve as examples what could have been for some of our main characters. I think it’s too early to guess specifics since RT’s storytelling likes to opt for an infuriatingly minimalist “information only as you need it” pacing, but whatever they’re going to do next in the plot it’s possibly going to be the last time we see them. Their role in the story is almost over. Someone’s going to develop because of what they do, but it won’t be them because they were never intended for it, nor will we see this with any of the other villains.

That’s just the lot of a side character.

[theticklishpear]

Hi! I've just learnt that not all characters, even main ones, need a character arc. Could you expand a bit more on this? How can a writer properly handle characters who "don't change"? I suspect that a character of mine might veer toward being the cause of events or the moral focus of my story, rather than a developing character, that's why I'm asking elucidations :) Thanks!

The terminology here between the two types of characterization is dynamic for those that undergo a kind of change from who they were at the start of a story, and static for those that essentially remain the same. Of course, what we’re referring to here for “change” is not that of circumstances, but changes in values, sensibilities, commitments–that is, anything that creates the essence of who a person is, what they care about, and the internal nature of characters.

Usually, we try to make sure that something changes within a character because whatever it is they’re dealing with has some kind of impact on them. A generally impatient character trying to get a cup of coffee before work who must deal with a hold-up in the line because of a machine malfunction learns patience and compassion as they watch the baristas deal with the impatience of other customers. A character who is trying to save the world must make a hard choice about what’s most important to them: saving A or saving a town; that hard choice forces them to reevaluate their core values about who has the “right” to make decisions about whose life is more valuable that another’s. Those changes throughout a narrative are usually why we tell the story, so having a narrative without those dynamic changes in the core of a character is trying to tell a fundamentally different kind of story.

And that’s fine.

From a literary standpoint, neither dynamic nor static characters are better or worse than each other. They both serve a purpose within the narrative. Whether they’re better or worse than each other is purely personal preference and dependent upon what’s needed for the story itself.

Heck, change can be good, bad, or simply indifferent! A character may encounter circumstances that make them lose their hope–and while they are a dynamic character, they certainly haven’t been bettered by that change.

Static characters are tools. They provide a foil–that is, a juxtaposition between the dynamic changes going on and the thing/person that is still/same as they were. They prove a point, as well; if your intention is to show something specific, static characters are a great option. Stories that are not about the way events impact a character and the way their decisions are changed from that, but rather is simply about the circumstances themselves, static characters are the way to go.

Murder mysteries are notorious for having static main characters because the story isn’t about the investigator but is rather about the story of the murder, murderer, and murdered themselves.

You just have to know what your purpose is and what will serve you best.

Good luck!-Pear

NOTE: Dynamic and static are not the same as round and flat characterization. Round/flat refers to a character’s complexity on the page, not whether they change their internal nature during the course of the story. Dynamic/static also does not refer to proactive/reactive characterization–whether they are actively participating and moving the story or not. Dynamic/static only refers to whether they as an individual experience internal change.

Static Character from Literary DevicesDynamic Vs. Static Character Definitions and Examples from SeattlepiCritical Concepts: “Static” and “Dynamic” Characterization from Kansas State UniversityStatic Character from TVTropesDynamic vs. Static Character by Melissa Kane on YouTube

[meiklemons-blog]

Assignment #2, Part 2

1. Write a brief summary of the main plot, describing the event or events that are the focus of the film and stating where and when they take place. 

All of the notices about the movie have told us that the story is told in reverse order. Leonard, played by Guy Pearce, kills the murderer of his wife in the film's first scene, and that the film then moves backward from that point, in roughly five-minute increments, to let us see how he tracked the guy down, ending with what is, chronologically, the story's beginning. He has witnessed the violent death of his wife and is determined to avenge it. But he has had short-term memory loss ever since the death and has to make copious notes--he even has memos tattooed to his body as reminders.

2. Name and describe the protagonist and the antagonist in this story.

Who is the true antagonist in Memento?

Is it John G or “Teddy”, who "killed" Leonard’s wife?

The first and most obvious choice for our antagonist is Teddy, the dude who's using Leonard to make some green and leaving casualties on the way. He's constantly trying to get at Leonard's car so he can cash in on the two hundred grand stashed in the trunk. He lies to Leonard about almost everything. But Teddy also has moments of honesty. He warns Leonard against Natalie and tries to persuade Leonard to investigate himself and question where he got the suit and the car. He consoles Leonard about being alive, and maybe he even tells Leonard the truth at one point about who he really is. So maybe he isn't completely a bad guy.

Is it Natalie, who manipulated Leonard into kidnapping Dodd?

Natalie is next on our list for obvious reasons. Teddy might be manipulative, but at least he's nice about it. But Natalie's manipulation is right in Leonard's face. She enrages him by mocking his dead wife in some pretty sleazy ways, and then gives him what is perhaps the evilest smiles as she prepares to use his violent nature against him. However, Natalie may actually like Leonard, or at least pity him. There doesn't seem to be a selfish motive for her running the license plate number and giving him info on John Gamel. Her desire to be remembered by him also seems sincere. So maybe she's not the antagonist either.

Or is it Leonard himself, who chose to ignore the facts (Even after going on about how facts are very important) and continue searching for John G, even after he was dead.

It is Anterograde Amnesia which Leonard is constantly battling and creates the scenario and drives the plot. It is the thing that shapes our protagonist, just like every good villain shapes their hero. Anterograde amnesia is at the center of all conflict in Memento. Both Natalie's and Teddy's manipulation is a result of—and accomplished because of— Leonard's condition. Antagonist is the force of nature against the protagonist. Sometimes, the protagonist and antagonist are the same character, depending on whose point of view you're watching the movie as.

3. In the story told by the film, what is the main conflict and how is it resolved?

Leonard Shelby, a former insurance investigator, suffers from anterograde amnesia, short term memory loss in which he cannot make new memories, after he was injured while trying to stop two men from raping and killing his wife in their home. After he awakes to find one of the intruders, he later confirms his name is John G., got away he vows to find that man and get revenge for his wife’s death. This pursuit of revenge and justice is extremely difficult for Leonard who has to use aids such as Polaroids, notes, and extensive tattoos to help him keep track of things because he loses his memory about every fifteen minutes. These tools remind him of where he is, where he is going, and the purpose of his investigation. Leonard interacts mainly with two other interesting characters in the film: Teddy, an unjust cop who pretends to be Leonard’s friend while gaining money on the side and Natalie, a barmaid, who is seeking her own revenge for the death of her boyfriend.

4. Identify and describe two literary elements or devices that are evident in the movie other than conflict, antagonist, protagonist and imagery. Other literary elements or devices may include: prologue, expository phase, voice, symbol, foreshadowing, flashback, irony, foil, opposition, archetype, motif, characterization, climax, and denouement. For each literary device that you identify, describe the role that it plays in presenting the story told by the film.

The use of Polaroid photographs and multiple plot lines in Memento function as a representation of Leonard’s character. The story itself follows two different plot lines: one that is presented in color (the main plot line), and another that is presented in monochrome (sub-plot line). The main plot follows a sequence that is non-linear and actually loops the story by starting where it ends and vice-versa, which is the plot sequence of the entire film in itself. The subplot follows a chronological sequence, contrasting with the main plot. By having two different plots, Memento not only succeeds in resembling Leonard’s character, but also reinforces the importance of the relationship between the Polaroid photographs and the narration sequence. The film reveals to us how and when Leonard took specific photos. In essence, the photographs are an evidence of a time that once existed but is now forever gone. But, due to Leonard’s disability, they will always be new and true every fifteen minutes (approximate time of how long it takes for Leonard to lose his new memories). So, in a way, they are timeless to him; there is no difference between the past and present, which we see twice when he questions how long it has been since he was in the hotel and since he’s been looking for John. G. The plot sequence is also supporting evidence of the past versus present idea.

Leonard’s voice which serves as a first-person narrator and also an unreliable narrator, whose credibility is seriously compromised, is another literary device served in  Memento. Sometimes the narrator's unreliability is made immediately evident. For instance, a story may open with the narrator making a plainly false or delusional claim or admitting to being severely mentally ill, or the story itself may have a frame in which the narrator appears as a character, with clues to the character's unreliability. A more dramatic use of the device delays the revelation until near the story's end. In some cases, the reader discovers that in the foregoing narrative, the narrator had concealed or greatly misrepresented vital pieces of information. Such a twist ending forces readers to reconsider their point of view and experience of the story. In some cases the narrator's unreliability is never fully revealed but only hinted at, leaving readers to wonder how much the narrator should be trusted and how the story should be interpreted.

5. Music and lighting are part of the way that the moviemakers communicate their message. Go deeper than that. Give two specific examples of how other elements of the cinematic art, such as shot framing, camera angles, camera movement, color, editing choice, or length of take were used by the filmmakers to get their point across. (2 paragraphs)

Christopher Nolan alternates the usage of black-and-white and color to fulfill a narrative strategy and the passage of time. The black-and-white scenes, which run in forward order, find Leonard in his hotel room talking on the phone. In these sequences, Leonard tells that parallel tale, illustrated for us with visual "flashbacks." As an insurance investigator, Leonard had a curious case: a man, Sammy Jankis, who had an accident and wound up with anterograde amnesia. Leonard investigates and ruthlessly denies the man's medical claim on the grounds that it was a mental problem and not a physical one. With the black-and-white scenes in chronological order, Nolan alternates that with much more kinetic and confusing main backward story line, which is told in color.

In addition, Nolan uses Leonard's voice-over as a simulation of his thinking, not speaking. The use of interior monologue places the audience in Leonard's head. We learn what he is thinking and feeling as he looks around the motel room. We enter into his experience of disorientation because his thinking expresses his confusion. The artistic challenge was to figure out other means of telling Leonard's story within the confines of the motel room. Interior monologue in film can only be used in very limited doses because the device is inherently static. The focus of interior monologue scenes is on the words, not the visuals. The image is subordinated to the verbal. The challenge is always how to make the visuals engaging in an interior monologue scene without distracting the audience from understanding what the voice-over is conveying.

6. Describe a lesson from this film that viewers can apply to their own lives: (1) to help them decide on a position to support on a public issue or (2) in their relations with family and friends. Detail the events that relate to this lesson. (1 to 3 paragraphs)

Natalie: “But even if you get revenge, you’re not gonna remember it. You’re not even gonna know that it happened.”

Leonard: “My wife deserves vengeance. Doesn’t make any difference whether I know about it. Just because there are things I don’t remember doesn’t make my actions meaningless. The world doesn’t just disappear when you close your eyes, does it?”

Leonard’s words ring true to my being that we shouldn’t live in ignorance. In the possibility of unperceived existence, can something exist without being perceived? If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? I choose to live my day by educating myself on other existences and events around me, by listening to the news or reading articles, by just simply being aware. You don’t hear the screams of people trapped under rubble in Mexico because of two high magnitude earthquakes that we didn’t feel it or affect our lives here in Southern California. You don’t see the pigs’ heads bashed by metal bats to render them unconscious for their meat or cows’ throats be slashed with buckets sitting underneath waiting to be filled with blood. In David Foster Wallace’s essay “Consider the Lobster,” he illustrates the lobsters' consciousness and invokes that the obvious "struggling, thrashing, and lid-clattering" which accompanies the lobsters' descent into the boiling kettle and adds that, according to most ethicists, “ this combination of neurological structures and behavior can be used to determine a creature's pain capacity”. Having worked through the complexities of the issue, Wallace returns to his original question: is it possible to truly defend the act of consuming flesh without acknowledging the act's inherent selfishness? I for one, am very passionate about animal rights and have not been consuming meat or taking part in purchasing animal-tested products, etc. We cause suffering on a much larger scale to farm animals on a daily basis than any other form of life including humans. I'm not asking for all meat consumption to end (while that would be ideal); I'm asking for stronger, non-prejudiced animal protection and rights while urging everyone to consider what they eat, where it came from, and how it got there. It frustrates me that progress on this subject is disturbingly slow. For that I blame ignorance, which can be cured through open minds, education, and compassion.

[theticklishpear]

(A table of contents is available. This series will remain open for additional posts and the table of contents up-to-date as new posts are added.)

Part Nine: What’s the Point?

Everything in a story has a purpose. Whether it’s something big and important like a magical device that changes how the game is being played, or something small like a touch of the hand to sooth a friend’s emotions, even the smallest of details has a position to fill in the grand scheme of building your world, your characters, and your story. As many jokes as there are (and rightfully so) about reading too much into a story to find the symbolism, it’s more truthful to say that all things have a function. And if they don’t, they don’t belong. Sounds harsh, but think about characters with only one, minor job to uphold; think about how much exposition you have to weave into the story, and how many scenes just have that character shoved in there because they have to be there for the other thing, and how much work you have to put into developing this person so that they can be a fully and rounded individual just so that you can have them do that one thing. How much of that extra work and extra information that you’re giving to your audience is necessary to the story? How much does their presence inflate your word count unnecessarily? Any focus that draws your audience away from the story and what they should be paying attention to is dead weight for your narrative. Unfortunately, the same goes for creature characters.

Back in Part Two, when we first started this series, I talked about making sure you’ve chosen a creature that is right and appropriate for the world, not just the super cool-looking one. The same principle applies to having a creature companion at all. They shouldn’t be there just because they’re cool and different and you’re tired of writing humanoids. Maybe all of those things are true, but the creature should also serve a function within the story. There needs to be a reason they’re necessary to the success or failure of your protagonist in achieving their goal.

Impact on Plot:

What does your creature bring to the table? Is there a reason they are the type of creature they are? Were they “discovered” at a specific point in the plot on purpose? When we’re planning our stories, we usually have an end result in mind, some goal we’re directing the story toward or helping our characters to achieve. Usually, those characters aren’t out-of-the-box ready to face whatever it is standing in their way. There’s a reason the story’s conflict exists. The plot focuses on how the characters learn and change and overcome the obstacles presented to them, and most of the time they have friends or allies along with them whose specific skills allow them to assist in those obstacles. Did you choose to include your creature companion for this kind of reason?

Are they there as a consequence of the plot, such as being forced into the fray by plot events, or are they there from an unrelated goal of their own? The difference is whether or not they come into the group with a goal already or whether they develop their goal by coming into the group. There’s nothing wrong with either way, but it’s certainly something to think about. They benefit from having a goal, no matter what, but how they come by that goal and how actively they go about trying to achieve it can vary depending on what you’re trying to do with your story.

Impact on Characters:

If your creature companion isn’t a large part of your story (the difference between Bree in The Horse and His Boy and Moonlight in Alanna: The First Adventure), your creature can still fill more than simply a logistical position. A pack horse can become an emotional support, or a talking creature could become the personality foil for a character. Perhaps they help a character work through something or discover something about themselves. Maybe your creature provides the perspective that a character never considered, or a friendship where there had never been one before.

Your characters grow as a result of their journey--or at least they should, as part of their character arc--and your creature characters can be an integral part to that process, even if they’re not particularly helpful in regards to the plot. They can provide very new ways of thinking and seeing the world and all its problems, which is important when you’re trying to help your characters grow. Even if they’re not talking animals--which are, of course, easier to sit and have a conversation with--the friendship or animosity, willingness to interact with or stand-offish-ness toward a character can not only be a wake-up call about themselves, but also provide moments of growth as your characters are forced to deal with characters who act and think differently than themselves. How do they react to being confronted with those kinds of behaviors and ideas? How does it challenge their thoughts and actions?

Impact on Themes & Symbolism:

While this series seems to push for making creature characters another one of your team as a complete entity with backstory and big things to do, that doesn’t necessarily have to be the case. Creatures with small roles that appear infrequently can be incredibly helpful to your story in terms of mood and tone with even just a few poignant scenes or moments. Your creature may be present in hopes of cluing your audience in to certain themes you want to highlight. Maybe your creature is a bird that lands on the windowsill each day, or maybe it’s a stray cat that your character recognizes from home. Your creatures don’t have to be big, in-your-face, plot-relevant characters to have a function and impact on your story. Perhaps you want to deal with certain themes or ideas that could be best represented with creatures. It’s less about the idea of needing to have your creature achieve something and making sure that your creature is there for a reason.

Next up: Character arcs with creatures!