#im just asking that people acknowledge problems with the characters they like and carefully examine their distaste for characters they dont

[roxilalonde]

Vriska Serket and the Antihero’s Archetype

In other news, I am endlessly fascinated with the Spidertroll. So I wrote an essay about gender, social perspective, literary archetypes, stages of morality, and Vriska Serket. 

First off: I’m not here to argue that Vriska is perfect. She fucks up. In some cases, she fucks up to the point where she seriously hurts others, mentally and physically, and becomes seriously toxic company. I’m not here to excuse her behavior wrt Tavros, or to justify her treatment of others’ emotional needs, because neither is healthy or defensible. But what I am interested in is how she ended up being the Fandom Recognized “worst troll ever” in a group with (a) a murderous bigot, (b) an abusive murderclown, and (c) a racist with a penchant for bestiality and a characteristic lack of regard for consent. 

The answer: It’s a long story.

Let’s talk about Vriska.

Absolutely necessary in any constructive discussion of Vriska’s character is an examination of her upbringing. Her lusus, a.k.a “Spidermom,” is demonstrably the worst parent of any of the trolls. Keeping her alive requires Vriska to routinely kill or be killed, and it obviously strains her; the psychological effects of having such a huge burden placed on her at a young age are demonstrated here; she voices a strong dislike for her lusus here. Further, Spidermom fails to care for Vriska to any extent you would expect from a parent, and Vriska seems delighted to be rid of her once the game starts. When confronted with the task of killing her parent, she is neither frightened nor even unhappy about it - her only concern is whether she’ll be able to do the job.

Your surroundings as a child define how you view the world and relate to it. Changing that perspective is difficult, and takes years of work and support. People in fandom like to characterize Vriska as a suave manipulator, cruel and unfeeling to the plight of others unless it benefits her to be concerned. But reading her pesterlogs, you would only believe that if you took everything she said at face value, which is a thin reading. A face-value reading implies that Dave likes puppets, Rose hates her mother, and Caliborn is a tactical genius. The impression Vriska gives is that of a person with a fundamental inability to connect with other people, who struggles with empathy in particular. She experiences sympathy - feeling bad that others are suffering - just fine. (Terezi and Kanaya, for example, are both recipients of her sympathy, after she does them harm.) But empathy, or the emotional understanding of others’ emotions as they experience them, she lacks, which evidences that her emotional intelligence never developed as a child (or she can’t do empathy, generally; neither is a character deficit so much as a product of circumstances outside of her control). Passages I think are useful reading here: these pesterlogs with Aradia and John, and the famous pirate cave monologue.

Now, let’s throw in Mindfang. From the onset, Vriska has two clearly established models in her life: a neglectful (arguably abusive) lusus, and an inaccessible, deified ancestor who glorifies violence and unlawfulness. Her value of Mindfang seems to come from Mindfang’s “coolness,” i.e., the fact that Mindfang is never awkward or incompetent. Of course a socially inept child is going to deify someone who’s always in control of their self-presentation. Especially since the Mindfang narrative that Vriska reads is entirely written by Mindfang, so there’s probably some severe manipulation of the facts going down to make her seem cooler than she is. 

And then Doc Scratch. An omniscient deity meddling in the affairs of a prepubescent girl from a young age, informing her that she has no choice in most of her critical decisions, and pushing her towards the decisions that will make possible the Alpha Timeline. He humors her desire for attention and importance by predicating his attention to her on her obedience; when she rebels, tries to develop an independent conscience, he criticizes her. From a young age, Vriska is being told that morality is impossible because everything in the universe is predetermined. That her choice doesn’t matter. Her life is a series of desperate grasps at free will, which has been denied her since birth. So she exerts her control over others to mimic the ways of her role models, Mindfang and Scratch. This is where Tavros comes in. 

That said: Vriska’s treatment of Tavros is inexcusable. It’s degrading, physically harmful, and toxic. Again, I’m not trying to defend it. But I want to point out that it comes from her trying to “improve” him, to change what she perceives as a flaw - his cowardice and indecisiveness. Already, Vriska is an improvement on her predecessors in that when she exerts control over others, she does it out of a misguided belief that she’s improving society - not solely for selfish reasons. And she points what she perceives as flaws with Tavros’ character. (Her comments about his disability, notably, which are ableist and inexcusable, do not fall under this category.) In trying to play Mindfang, and make him into her Summoner, the inept Vriska ends up hurting him. It doesn’t stem from malignancy; it stems from instability, and a lack of emotional intelligence. That’s where virtually all of her problems come from.

Additionally, her egotism in thinking she can “fix” Tavros can be traced to Spidermom and Mindfang, too. Her need to step out of her idols’ shadow leads to a desperate search for recognition, first and foremost a positive one. She’s a neglected child who desperately wants attention. What she does to get that attention is coached in the norms of a brutally violent society, but is a cry for help nonetheless.

Let’s talk about antiheroes.

Contrary to popular belief, an antihero is not just “an imperfect hero” or “a hero who doesn’t always do the right thing.” The antihero, specifically, is a person with ethical principles designed to contrast the protagonist - whom you root for even if they make the wrong choices. The AH has the same goals as the Protag, but a different set of ethics from whence they derive those goals. From TV Tropes:

“An Archetypal Character who is almost as common in modern fiction as the Ideal Hero, an antihero is a protagonist who has the opposite of most of the traditional attributes of a hero . . . often an antihero is just an amoral misfit. While heroes are typically conventional, anti-heroes, depending on the circumstances, may be preconventional (in a "good" society), postconventional (if the government is "evil") or even unconventional. Not to be confused with the Villain or the Big Bad, who is the opponent of Heroes (and Anti-Heroes, for that matter).”

Aranea is a villain. She directly opposes the goals of our protagonists (winning the session, and/or bodily autonomy). Gamzee is a villain: he directly opposes the goals of our protagonists (staying alive, not dying). The Condesce is a villain: she directly opposes the goals of our protagonists (staying alive, winning the session). Vriska is not a villain, archetypally: she does not oppose the goals of our protagonists, most of the time, and in fact helps in achieving them. Putting aside the question of whether she’s a bad person, she’s not a Bad Guy.

Her code of ethics most closely aligns with an Antihero - in this case, a preconventional one. There’s a neat article to be written about Vriska’s advancement along the Kohlberg stages of moral development, but for our purposes, “preconventional” just means “I do things for me, and to the extent that doing things for others will do things for me.” Her main goal: fame and glory. Subsidiary goals: help her teammates to win the game, and create a new universe. Unlike traditional preconventional actors, she doesn’t care about her own life and wellbeing, or if she does, only insofar as they can aid her ultimate goal, which is attention and acclaim.

AG: I only ever wanted to do the right thing no matter how it made people judge me, and I don't need a magic ring to do that.

Let’s talk about gender.

Take a moment and tally up all the male antiheroes in popular media you can remember. (Count them twice if they get a redemption arc.) Off the top of my head: Zuko, Lestat, Derek Hale, Nico di Angelo, Severus Snape, Jason Todd, Captain Jack Sparrow, Han Solo, Spike, Tyrion Lannister. That’s without a single glance at the TV Tropes page, either. Those are all from some of the most popular media of the past twenty years: ATLA, IWAV, Teen Wolf, Percy Jackson, Harry Potter, Batman, PoTC, Star Wars, Buffy, Game of Thrones. 

Now count the women. (Count them as half if their “alternative code of ethics” is “I sleep with and lie to men to get what I want, which is almost exclusively money, until I met Protagonist, who changed my evil ways.”) Personally, I’ve got a decently sized list, but at least half are from Homestuck, with others being characters I go out of my way to explore: Arya Stark, Princess Bubblegum, Marcelline, most women from House. I’d give it to Furiosa, too, although that’s arguable. Maybe you have a long list; if so, please tell me what you’ve been reading/watching lately, because these women are either sidelined in the popular media they appear in, or aren’t depicted in popular media to the same level that their male counterparts are at all. (Note: the one-off female antihero, on the other hand, is incredibly popular, perhaps because the writer doesn’t need to develop her character or give her a substantive arc: see Jyn from ATLA, Calypso from PoTC, Narcissa Malfoy from HP.) 

Here’s why: people are much more inclined to forgive a man for doing bad things than they are to forgive a woman. You can chalk this up to any number of stereotypes about women in media: that they have to be nurturers, or that their “purity” is an important aspect of their being. Regardless, if you look over the TV Tropes page for the antihero (even with the obvious miscategorizations), and you’ll find the vast majority are men. Writers have realized that audiences are far more interested in a morally grey, badass, complex, tragic-backstoried man of action than a woman of the same persuasion. 

Let’s go back to talking about Vriska.

Contrast the fandom’s reception of Vriska with its reception of Eridan. To clarify: Eridan, ultimately, isn’t an antihero. He’s a villain. He murders people. He wants to commit genocide. Furthermore, he has no discernible motivation for this except being a bigoted asshat. But you don’t see 2,000-word callouts for Eridan, despite there being a large portion of fandom that wholeheartedly stans him. This doesn’t mean you can’t be interested in Eridan as a character, or even that you can’t like him, although I don’t understand the appeal, personally. But it means that condemning Vriska, all of whose mistakes are clearly motivated and regretted, probably isn’t the hill you want to die on.

I envision a hypothetical world where Vriska is written a boy. And I guarantee you, in that world, there’s a dedicated group of fans who - unironically - call him “a perfect sinnamon roll” and “my innocent son.” His trauma is openly discussed and sympathized with in fandom. Vrisrezi is in the top 5 most popular Homestuck ships on AO3. The Scourge Bros are the most popular troll ship, period. 

We forgive Terezi for manipulating Dave. We forgive Terezi for manipulating and murdering John. Because hey, narratively speaking, they end up fine, right? (Just like Tavros does.) But Vriska is where we draw the line in the sand. Because she’s an antihero, whereas Terezi has always been a nice, comfortable female protagonist. She doesn’t conflict with John & Co. She is clearly motivated by the Greater Good. Vriska is not.

Conclusion

Vriska isn’t simple. Female characters who aren’t simple inevitably cause controversy, to a much lesser degree than male characters of the same nature. Furthermore, the fact that she isn’t a protagonist in the classical sense - whereas most of her group, in contrast, are clearly written as protagonists - makes her appear “worse” than the others, or even, at an extreme “the worst.” Disliking her is perfectly understandable. Thinking she’s a bad person is reasonable. But please don’t do either without considering why she does what she does, and evaluating for yourself whether she deserves the reputation she has.