#it lets her be flawed and human and deeply sympathetic! and yet some people refused to get the memo!

[chamerionwrites]

One of the more fascinating examples of fandom’s faves-based morality I’ve personally encountered recently was the number of people in the Mon Mothma tag who were absolutely BURNING with righteous fury at her 13-year-old daughter in Andor, when the worst things we have actually seen said character do are (1) be kind of a little shit to her mom (again, she’s thirteen) and (2) fall victim to a space tradwife cult. You know, because she’s thirteen. And has a pretty self-evidently lonely and unpleasant home life. And lives directly in the rotten beating ideological heart of space fascism.

The number of people vocally wishing punishment on a fictional tween was WILD. I unfollowed that tag after ~48 hours lol

[kitkatopinions]

You know, it’s an interesting thing to see RWBY fans act like it’s a bad faith criticism when people don’t automatically assume that everything Ruby does is one hundred percent good and justified. In fact, ever since season six, it seems like people consider the only proper way of thinking to be A) assuming that anything bad that’s happening is entirely not Ruby’s fault. B) assuming that anything Ruby does in these situations is justified, needed, and good. And C) assuming that Ruby is going to fix anything bad that’s happening shortly.

I’m becoming more and more convinced that much of the so called ‘bad faith criticisms’ that mega fans and simps are concerned about are frequently just people not assuming that those three things are always true. Many fans have taken to filling in the blanks for CRWBY, which is something that’s generally expected in all media with a strong fan presence, but is taken to the extreme in RWBY where many fans are now deciding things and deeming them canon all in the name of making Ruby look as blameless and good as possible. That’s why there are fans insisting that Ironwood invaded Vale and has no combat experience, it’s completely untrue with no canon to support it, and yet is seen as the only definitive reading allowed by many fans, and that’s because it makes Ironwood look like he’s always been a horrible incompetent fool, so Ruby no longer looks bad by lying to him and then casting him aside. That’s why there are fans insisting that Ruby and co had to get across the border to Atlas quickly and couldn’t waste any time waiting, that’s why fans insist that Cordovin forced Ruby’s hand by not giving her a peaceful option despite the peaceful option she literally offered on screen. That’s why there are fans insisting that Ruby only stayed in the mansion in volume eight because she couldn’t leave Nora or because Ironwood would’ve arrested her and she was forced to prioritize her safety because she knows she’s imperative to the war. That’s why there are fans saying that no reading where any single person was left behind in the evacuation from Atlas to Vacuo is acceptable despite Qrow, Maria, and Pietro all being left behind, and the concept of ‘Ruby saved everyone’ being unequivocally false due to the soldiers that died facing Salem, the on-screen deaths of named characters including Penny, and anyone who Cinder knocked off the bridge.

These fans are ignoring canon things like that, canon things like there being a clear and peaceful solution to getting over the Atlas border, and Ruby spending episodes and I think around an in-show day despairing that she doesn’t know what to do and wants someone to come save her where characters are literally telling her she needs to leave the mansion and Ruby gives no solid reason why she shouldn’t except that they shouldn’t pick sides. They ignore any indication in canon that Ruby is just wrong or just faulty and construct a narrative where Ruby is one hundred percent right and sympathetic, and then they consider anything that didn’t automatically adhere to that rule to be ‘bad faith.’

“Why didn’t you just assume that Ruby was going to apologize to Ozpin next season? That’s a bad faith criticism, this is a story, so not everything is gonna be resolved super fast.” “Why didn’t you realize that Ruby was right to be upset with Ozpin and was justified because Ozpin lied to her about important things? Oz should be the one apologizing to her, that’s a bad faith criticism.” “Why didn’t you realize that Ruby only lied to Ironwood because she wasn’t sure she could trust him? Her situation with Oz is completely different, he isn’t learning his lesson and hasn’t apologized. Ruby is going to trust James later and prove she’s better than Oz.” “Why didn’t you realize that Ruby never would have trusted James because he’s always been shady and she knew that and she only worked with him in the first place because she had to in order to use his resources?” “Why didn’t you realize that James was the one not trusting Ruby and she was the one trusting and he broke that trust and Ruby was willing to work with him only he wasn’t willing to work with her?” “Why didn’t you realize that Ozpin was always bad and incompetent and Ruby is being gracious to allow him back in her group now that he apologized for not trusting her?”

What we have is a bunch of people deciding what’s going to happen (and quickly forgetting they said that if it doesn’t happen,) re-writing what did happen, ignoring the canon as it’s happening, and filling in any blank they get with whatever makes Ruby look as good as possible, and then they consider anything that doesn’t comply with that to be bad faith.

Ruby is a flawed protagonist. In fact, she’s way more flawed than what the show expects us to think. She’s naïve, she lacks foresight, she’s reckless, she overestimates her own abilities and her friend group, she’s stubborn and only listens when she wants to, she’s arrogant at times, she’s become unforgiving, she’s at least somewhat controlling with her friends, she only sees in black and white and alienates anyone who doesn’t fit her exact moral code, and she’s recently taken to mood swings, shutting down, and bouts of indecisiveness that freeze her up and prevent her from taking possible life saving actions, she’s more ‘ends justify the means’ than she admits, and she’s hypocritical.

Now, if you don’t read Ruby with all of that and think I’m being a bit too harsh, that’s fine. There are good things about Ruby too (though admittedly I’m seeing her amazing traits from the early seasons way less in the recent seasons,) and she does some good things. But she does have flaws and she does make mistakes, and what I’d really like to see is less people constantly making excuses for literally everything she does or says, and more people admitting when she makes mistakes. Maybe a “she really should’ve asked Penny before turning her into a human” instead of a “of course she asked her it was just off screen you loser!” Maybe a “she shouldn’t have decided to lie to Ironwood without talking to her team about it at least,” instead of a “the team trusts Ruby and she would’ve asked them if she’d been given a chance you stupid freak!” Maybe a “Ruby really froze up for a good portion of season eight, she made quite a few mistakes, I wonder how she’ll come back from it,” instead of “Ruby was forced away from the fight because Ironwood would’ve had her executed and she’s smart enough to know that!”

Main characters in stories are supposed to make mistakes and have flaws, it gives a personal growth that’s relatable to their victories and gives opportunity for growth in character dynamics, and goes towards making them feel more realistic and likable. Of course not everyone is going to like, say, a main character who is arrogant and over steps boundaries, but that character also can therefore grow and change and adjust, and that is very likable to most audiences. The best protagonists in media are deeply flawed characters that try hard to overcome not only the big problems they face, but the small conflicts that come from their own actions and the reactions they have to what other people do. Ruby should have flaws, she should make mistakes, and she does! One of the biggest problems with the show RWBY is their refusal to treat Ruby’s flaws as flaws and their inability to let her grow. And one of the biggest problems with the fandom is people’s inability to treat Ruby’s flaws as flaws and their insistence that everyone adhere to the rules of ‘Ruby is always justified, always right, and will always fix everything.’

[amethystroselily]

(This was originally written on Twitter and that’s why it’s so bad. (Now with unnecessary censoring!!!) I don’t go on tumblr enough to know the general consensus on Geto here. This might only apply to Twitter. I don’t know)

I don’t know why everyone on Twitter thinks none of Geto’s actions were his fault or even immoral. He was a deeply flawed person who made terrible decisions and that’s what makes him such a good character.

EVERYONE at jujutsu high was in similar traumatic situations as him, he’s the only one who decided to lead a r*cist m*rder c*lt. And while I understand why he did it, it definitely wasn’t a GOOD or honorable decision.

And his daughters. He loved them, but he also literally raised them in a c*lt. I’ve heard ppl say he wouldn’t have cared if they didn’t end up following his ideology, but, like, he did attack an institution full of ppl he was once very close with for that reason, so while I Don’t think he would have killed them or anything, I do think he would have been p*ssed. So I think he tried very hard to instill his ideology into them. We know he was doing that to other people, bc y’know, c*lt leader, so why wouldn’t he be willing to teach that to his kids? Even ppl who are usually against forcing their beliefs on people, instill their beliefs In their kids. So why wouldn’t a guy who thinks he’s SO right that he thinks EVERYONE should follow his beliefs also instill those beliefs in people he raised? He would have thought it right and moral thing to do, and that’s the problem. I think ppl tend to think he’s a “good person” bc he can explain his thought process in a way most people can empathize with, but that doesn’t mean he’s a good person it just means he’s a good character.

Him being right isn’t about whether his emotions were valid or not, it’s about how he handled those feelings and whether he helped more than he hurt. And he definitely did more of the latter. While he did tend to rationalize things as a way to help humanity, he was more driven by anger, bitterness, and self righteousness than his desire to help people. I think that’s why he never actually accomplished anything. He seemed fixated on revenge and ki/ling people, and a lot of his plans were about kil/ling non-sorcerers, rather than saving sorcerers from them. I think he let his hatred get in the way of his original goal of saving people. I don’t even think it was about saving sorcerers by the end there. He was completely willing to kil/l sorcerers just so he could kil/l non-sorcerers, and I think that takes away a lot of the validity of the reasoning he pretends he has. By then he’d spent a decade in his little echo chamber of hate, so at that point maybe even he would acknowledge it was no longer about saving people.

Also can we talk about how stupid his plan in vol 0 was? It’s kind of unrelated, but he is not the genius some of you think he is. (Affectionate, this time) The man was running on pure self-righteousness at that point (probably the result of only surrounding himself with ppl Who worship him for the last ten years) Maybe Kenjaku’s kind of blurring ppl’s perception of Geto? He does seem to be using Geto’s cursed technique much more efficiently than Geto was. But that’s probably bc he’s ancient and knows a lot of information Geto didn’t.

Anyway, back to my original point, his ideology was blatantly flawed, he’s just charismatic and really good at deflecting, so it seems like it makes more sense than it does. Bc it does make sense to him, and ppl like him, they want to agree with him bc he’s charming, and likable, And Tragic tm, so they do (both his cu/lt and readers) , but like, his ideas are pretty flawed (and borderline eug/enics-y?) and the narrative doesn’t want you to agree with him, it just wants you to understand why he’s the way he is. I guess Gege did really well at writing a cu/lt leader at least. Bc I swear some of you genuinely agree with him.

Like how happy did he think everyone was going to be when the vast majority of the population was de-ad??? Including a bunch of their loved ones? What was he going to when someone had a baby who was a non-sorcerer? Ki1l it? What was he going to do if ppl revolted bc he murd/ered all their loved ones? Kil1 them too? There’s only going to be like ten people left on the planet. I refuse to believe this b1tch thought that through.

I actually think KENJAKU’S plan may actually be more ethical. At least their end goal isn’t literally to k1ll people, and allows far more people to survive than Geto’s. Ppl dy/ing just happens to be part of the process rather than the actual goal. And oh my god, that’s such a LOW bar. Kenjaku may actually be helping ppl more than Geto, which isn’t much, but like I said low bar. He’s just less motivated by emotion and doesn’t have a tragic backstory (YET) so he comes of as more ~EVIL~. But it’s actually hilarious that people see Kenjaku as so much worse than Geto when they’re about on the same level. Kenjaku is considerably less outspokenly m*rderous and Geto is a better friend, so it evens out I guess? I would say it’s bc Kenjaku’s trying to ki1l the mcs and Geto wasn’t, but that’s not even true. Geto literally tried to kil1 all of the second years, and Kenjaku couldn’t care less about whether anyone lives or di*s, he’s just just trying to “evolve” ppl. He took Tsumiki h*stage But as far as he knows or cares she could win the culling game, Geto would have literally kil1ed her for being a non-sorcerer. (He attacked a elementary school, he wouldn’t care that she’s a kid, don’t lie to yourself)

And, yes, a lot of Geto’s traits could make him a good person, but those same traits are the ones that make him such a bad person. (Passion, charisma, even empathy at times, bc he empathizes so much with select ppl that when non-sorcerers (who he no longer deems ppl) hurt them He feels wronged and lashes out at the things he deems not worthy of sympathy)

Anyway it’s ok to acknowledge his flaws, or even feel neutral on him, he doesn’t have to be perfect for you to like him. (This isn’t a Kenjaku defense post, btw, it’s just funny that that’s true) I’ve seen way too many posts claiming the only bad thing Geto’s ever done is hurting Maki, and like, that’s nearly objectively false. And like half of them were completely unironic. A sympathetic villain isn’t the same thing as a hero.

This isn’t even Geto hate, I LIKE him, but the widespread perception of him being completely justified just feels so wrong. Why do so many people feel SO protective of him? Is his c-ult leader charisma just that effective?

I actually think pretending none of his flaws exist takes away SO much from his character. It strips away his agency and turns him into this tragic can-do-no-wrong figure that he just isn’t. He’s someone who couldn’t handle their own tr*uma and decided to take it out on the world. The way he decided to handle that is no one’s fault but his own.

[clodiuspulcher]

Can I ask what draws you to Agamemnon? He's often kind of a difficult figure to grapple with. Sincere question btw, not meant to sound mean I swear :)

NO NO this isn’t mean at all it’s uh. yeah I know it’s an unpopular Take / Opinion and I really do … care deeply about Agamemnon as a character, so thanks for giving me a chance to explain! it’s complicated, he’s complicated… This is gonna get long

I: APPEARANCE Let’s first put the shallow aspects on the table: he’s big, he’s powerful, he’s My Type (physically), I’m gay. This never comes through in film adaptations (although you know what? 1962 Electra Agamemnon comes close, although he’s overshadowed by the hot Aegisthus) but look at how he’s described in the Iliad: He’s compared to 3 gods, canonically Agamemnon is the most handsome man Priam’s EVER seen in his like one million years of life (a list of men which includes Aeneas , Hector, etc). (this post). When Priam says he’s “Every inch a king”, baby, you know what that means-Anyway , @kashuan‘s art is VERY good for conveying how I imagine Agamemnon based on these descriptions. and he’s drawn like exactly my type there. It’s a lot to reckon with.He’s big. He has big arms and big thighs and could kill me if he wanted and he’s powerful and his aristeia is badass and i’m gay. thanks. II: PERSONALITY Now this part is. more about Agamemnon’s character. first, Agamemnon in the Iliad is in fact deeply flawed- he’s imperious and arrogant and shortsighted and short-tempered, he’s stubborn and selfish and ALL OF THE THINGS PEOPLE HAVE SAID HE IS but there’s also a complexity to his character that tends to get flattened - I think because Agamemnon’s at his worst in book 1, people adhere to this AWFUL first impression and don’t bother to look beneath the surface / take the rest of his behavior / his character into account / use this as the baseline of their understanding, but there IS MUCH MORE to him than that behavior even in the Iliad itself, as detailed in THIS POST. He’s a powerful warrior in his own right, and his failings reflect both the internal flaws of his character and the weight of his responsibilities; we see his concern for his men, for the army, the people, in books 4 and 10 (when he can’t sleep because of his anxiety about his men, about Hector). He DOES however, learn and become better, he grows, he’s dynamic: he and Achilles finally make up (book 19! book 23! They’re good now!) and the Odyssey also ends with their ghosts talking as friends.

(Side note I wonder how this works out when Agamemnon’s son kills Achilles’s son but… that’s for another day).

There’s complexity in Agamemnon’s characterization in the tragedies as well, each tragedian has a different portrait of Agamemnon but he’s never one-dimensional.Euripides’ Hecuba has Agamemnon as concerned about his image and his reputation, anxious (and almost insecure) about his authority, but also concerned with justice and the rule of law, even towards one’s enemies. Sophocles’ Ajax portrays an imperious, proud, stubborn Agamemnon who refuses to realize he’s in the wrong but is able to be convinced by the council of Odysseus and eventually, again, comes to an understanding. Seneca’s Trojan Women shows Agamemnon as a Stoic voice of Reason, urging Pyrrhus not to be too violent/hubristic in their victory, and I love both the presentation of Agamemnon as a tired old man wanting to go home and the sort of man who gets into arguments with teenagers about war crimes. As usual, Seneca excels at this subtlety of characterization, this is like the epitome of the Dichotomy of Agamemnon, sympathetic and infuriating, a good leader and a stubborn, proud man, stoic and short-tempered, as present in the Iliad, is here too, and I love it , and him. Seneca’s Agamemnon almost reverses this (HE REALLY SAYS “What can a victor fear”) but I still love that play, and there’s something to be said for the characterization of Agamemnon as someone who learned ABSOLUTELY nothing from victory.

Overall, it’s true that we get, mainly, a portrait of a hard, ruthless, powerful, embittered man- remember how he destroys that one guy Menelaus wanted to save in the Iliad - but he has a sort of “aggressive charisma” as Kashuan once put it and I REALLY see it, and honestly that in itself has some sort of an appeal to me. But with this portrait of his personality, his softer aspects, the moments of gentleness we see, are more striking, they really stand out and indicate the extent of his feelings. In the iliad, for example, we clearly see he loves Menelaus and while he’s almost laughably over-protective (MORE ON THIS LATER), his care for his brother is evident, touching, especially juxtaposed with his shortsighted selfishness. Just look at what happens in Book 4, when Menelaus is barely wounded and Agamemnon is practically writing his eulogy. Right afterwards, also, “Noble Agamemnon showed no reluctance, no cowardice or hesitation, only eagerness for the fight where men win glory”- he rushes in to fight (but not before first taking out his anxiety on his men by demanding more from them. Cannot do anything appealing / good without mitigating it with irritating behavior. love this fool). It takes him like 9 books to finally apologize to Achilles but he defends Menelaus from Nestor’s reproach in book 10, is anxious about Menelaus being in danger if he’s picked to go on a night raid with Diomedes (HERE) and is endearingly not-subtle about it, frets over him in book 4, when he’s wounded, etc.

The love for his family is something that continually stands out and is perhaps his main “redeeming” trait. In the Odyssey, as mentioned, he ask Odysseus desperately about Orestes with heart-rending choice of words especially when one considers Orestes’s Actual Fate: “Come tell me, in truth, have you heard if my son is still alive, maybe in Orchomenus or sandy Pylos, or in Menelaus’ broad Sparta: that my noble Orestes is not yet dead?”. Agamemnon’s no longer a king- he’s a worried father, he regrets the most not being able to see Orestes before he’s killed; it is this pain, of not being able to be a father to his children, which seems to cut the most deeply, which he speaks of multiple times to Odysseus. Then they just cry for a while, with each other. (I like these tender aspects hidden in a big mean man.. but I also like his big meanness).

the Tragedies take this to another level, of course, to drive home the PATHOS required for his death to have an impact but his love of his family is very much on display there. Iphigenia in Aulis in particular provides us with some agonizing demonstrations of this love: Iphigenia reminisces about an exceptionally tender moment in their relationship, when she was young (you used to ask me, “I wonder, my darling, will I get to see you married one day, married and settled happily in your husband’s home, your life ever blossoming, making me proud of you?” And I’d touch your chin, my father, hang from your beard, father, like I’m doing now and say, “and what about you, father, will I get to see you, father, an old man, visiting me at my house, ready for me to repay you for your hard work in raising me?”) an image hard to reconcile with the merciless violence and stubborn arrogance Agamemnon displays in the Iliad (BUT AGAIN, THAT’S THE APPEAL). Clytemnestra assumes he’s crying because he’s sad to see Iphigenia leave them, Agamemnon’s messenger tells him the arrival of his family will cheer him up: even his subordinates know how important they are to him.

I’d need a whole nother post to talk about his relationship with Clytemnestra but please peruse these crumbs I picked off the ground (HERE). they Had something, tbh the tragedy ONLY WORKS if they did and I will DIE on this hill. In Aeschylus, Clytemnestra calls Orestes the “mutual pledge of their love”, he calls her a “great-hearted woman”, she shirks in Aulis at his curt, demanding tone towards her, noting it as something out of character, she takes charge anyway, knows he can’t or won’t actually force her not to be involved in the Iphigenia marriage preparations-All of this creates an image of a man whose imperious, ruthless, stubborn character is balanced with a surprising capacity for tenderness, a genuine fondness and love for the members of his family, which makes the fact that his hand, albeit forced, aids in its destruction, that much more devastating.III: PSYCHOLOGY/HISTORY

Where things get especially interesting for me, character-wise, is when one thinks about his lineage, his past, and his childhood with respect to his current character. This section is about the House of Atreus in general.

Agamemnon clearly bears the scars of his environment: he was born into the House of Atreus and IMO that informs everything he says and does, all his thoughts and feelings, the way he perceives both the world and his place in it. Seneca’s Thyestes is a horrific portrait of what Agamemnon (and Menelaus’s) childhoods must have been like, ATREUS is their father, they were old enough during this event to almost be accomplices which means they’re clearly old enough to remember it. Speaking of that, Atreus isn’t worried that participating in his god-crime schemes will turn his sons evil because, in his mind, they were born evil (Ne mali fiant times? nascuntur. God GOD). Agamemnon and Menelaus grow up in a nightmare house, adjacent to atrocity, under the almost comically cruel hand of Atreus who sincerely believed his sons inherited said cruelty as if its on the same chromosome as the “house-curse” gene. It’s genuinely a miracle Agamemnon and Menelaus grew up to be functional fucking human beings, in my opinion. It also gives a lot more weight to his relationship with Menelaus and the hard imperious cast of his character; their bond was forged in fire, Agamemnon likely protected Menelaus from the worst of Nightmare House being the older brother, and being as protective as he is. There’s this one Iliad adaptation, I can’t think of it off the top of my head though, where when Agamemnon’s freaking out about Menelaus being Barely Wounded he says “don’t die… for you are all I have” and that’s absolutely  how I think about their relationship in this context- Menelaus WAS all he had for so long, they clung to each other, they preserved their humanity in the face of horror BECAUSE OF each other.

But functional like.. .for a given value of “function”. Agamemnon is clearly deeply affected by these events, the weight of the Curse of the House of Atreus clearly impacts him. Take Iphigenia in Aulis, where he says “each one is born with his bitterness waiting for him”, the fact that a Son of Atreus would say that, I think, speaks to the innate, unspeakable fear of the certain destruction of his world, of the tragedy that awaits him, at his own hands, of the House-Curse waiting perched on his shoulder to strike just when he thought he’d created something impenetrable. The tragedy of Iphigenia in Aulis is Agamemnon’s realization that he has locked himself into this, that he has no other choice (see: this post about the Odysseus impact, there is in fact a point when it’s inevitable, although he still made the first move which makes it even WORSE he created this, etc) and all he can do at this point is watch as the life he so carefully built for himself and his family collapses around him, just like he must have always dreaded it would. (Also in the Iliad It’s Agamemnon who says “We must toil, in accord with the weight of sorrow Zeus loaded us with at birth” and that reminds me of this aspect of him too: Good Things Never Last, Bad Things Never Die, etc.)

It’s made clear that the story of Atreus and Thyestes is widespread, familiar; Teucer in Sophocles’ Ajax and Neoptolemus in Seneca’s Trojan Women both call out Agamemnon for trying to reference his lineage as a source of authority because it is a HORRIFIC lineage. “I know about the famous family of Atreus and Thyestes”, Neoptolemus says. And THEREIN LIES A CONFLICT: Agamemnon’s sense of self comes from his authority, his kingship, his position of power and his social status as a member of the nobility, of the class of royalty BUT. It’s all undercut by the fact that this power, authority, indeed his very identity is based in cruelty, violence, and crime; Agamemnon is descended from the most ignoble nobility, which he knows all too well.

It’s Interesting that Agamemnon’s relationship with his identity, status, family, power is brought up in Ajax, of all plays, primarily concerned with the destruction of Ajax’s identity- reminding Agamemnon of the crimes of his house genuinely cuts him down. I see Agamemnon as a man who genuinely fears his past, who dreads the legacy of his father and in his desperation creates a crisis for himself (as happens in tragedy).

We (I) laugh at Agamemnon “forgetting” about the god-crime shit before he pulls rank by referencing his Authority and Status but there’s something in Agamemnon continually being owned by forgetting about the House….  Agamemnon wants to distance himself from the “legacy” he inherited from Atreus, but he can’t without disavowing his power, his authority, his identity. Whether he likes it or not (he does Not), this is fundamental to who he is. I feel like that knowledge too lurks in his mind, rises to the forefront occasionally at his lowest points-

Clytemnestra in Aeschylus’s Agamemnon pretty clearly sees him / his actions as the next link in the god-crime family chain, a continuation of the house -curse, heir to his father’s throne and his crimes, hence her belief that killing him is the only way to end it/ stop the cycle of violence (spoiler she is wrong but there’s another post coming eventually about how they are Very Similar Characters short version the Etruscans Understand).

IN short, I think there’s a lot of complexity in Agamemnon people overlook, or don’t get to see since they don’t read the peripheral plays. Agamemnon seems to me a man in conflict with himself, a Man of Contradictions, who defines himself by his authority and status while fearing the source of it, whose devotion to his family contrasts with the horror of his childhood, and with his own agonizing role in its destruction, a man who willfully ignores or cannot bring himself to fully interact with the legacy of Atreus, who tries to distance himself from the crimes of his house and the cruelty of his father while being reminded of both every time he’s called by the epithet Atreides.

[cinderstorm]

Writing Tips #9: The Moral Spectrum (Characterization Lesson)

Hello, writer friends, and welcome to another episode of Writing Tips! In today’s lesson, we’ll discuss characters and how to categorize them on a moral continuum.

There are several dominant models when it comes to a character’s morality. Most of you are familiar with the chaotic-neutral-lawful/good-neutral-evil categorization method. That schema will be relegated to its own post, as it adds an additional dimension to this topic which would distract from this lesson. For this post, we’ll be focusing solely on a good/evil continuum, without regard to how a given character sits on a lawful/chaotic continuum.

1. The Extremes: Imagine a sliding scale in which “good” and “evil” sit at opposite ends. For simplicity’s sake, we’ll make it a scale of one to ten, with “ten” representing ultimate good and “one” representing ultimate evil.

It’s rare for a character to achieve a perfect ten on the morality scale. Like most humans, characters typically have flaws which prevent them from being perfectly selfless and compassionate. However, these characters do exist and can serve a useful purpose in your story. For instance, an angel would most likely fit under the category of ultimate good. So would certain saints or benevolent gods. These characters are kind, charitable, and loving, exemplifying perfect morality.

On the other end of the scale, we have ultimate evil. It’s easier to find characters at this end of the scale than at the other end, as they can make for interesting villains. These characters are not only dangerous, but cruel and twisted. They’re the sort of people who would torture a puppy for amusement. Any hint of kindness or compassion they show is merely an attempt at manipulation. These characters can  quite justifiably be considered Complete Monsters.

Here’s the problem with characters who sit at either extreme: they can very easily become one-dimensional. Characters who score a ten on the morality scale can (quite justifiably) be accused of being too perfect. Which is not to say that you have to eliminate these extremes from your story. A Complete Monster can make a viable final boss for your characters to fight, and an angelic character can make an excellent friend and guide (though rarely a great protagonist).

Let’s look at The Dresden Files. We have the character Michael Carpenter. A brave and pious Knight of the Cross, he exemplifies all that is good about humanity (also, he fights monsters). He is an excellent supporting character and foil to Harry Dresden (wizard and narrator), but he lacks the internal conflict necessary for an engaging protagonist. There’s very little room for a character arc, because he’s already as close to an ideal human being as a character can reasonably be. 

From the same series, we have the Denarians (people controlled by or cooperating with fallen angels), who fall under the category absolute evil. They at various points betray their supposed allies, steal a significant religious artifact, and torture a young girl (mostly for kicks).

Fittingly, the purpose of the Knights of the Cross is to fight (and try to redeem) the Denarians. This battle of good and evil is important to the overarching story within The Dresden Files, but it only becomes interesting when we see it mirrored in a much more personal way through Harry Dresden (morally, 5.5-8 depending on where you are in the series) as he struggles between choosing to accept the power offered to him by the Denarians or refusing that power at great expense to himself and his loved ones.

2. Morally Gray Characters: It’s much more common for a character to fall somewhere in the middle of the good/evil spectrum. Between notches four and six, you have your anti-heroes and sympathetic villains. Often, the primary difference between these categories is that we’re seeing the story through one character’s/group’s eyes instead of the other.

A Song of Ice and Fire by George R.R. Martin (or Game of Thrones, for those of you who watch the HBO series) relies heavily on morally grey characters. Granted, these characters, if let loose in other works, would probably fall somewhere between a two and a four, but in fiction, morality is relative, and the gritty tone of the series means these otherwise reprehensible characters are middle-of-the-road relative to one another. While there are a few genuinely irredeemable characters (Ramsey Snow, Joffrey, The Mountain), most of the characters are simultaneously deeply flawed and in some way sympathetic. These characters have different goals, beliefs, and philosophies which put them at odds with each other, and there are differences in the relative morality of each character, but they are almost without exception some shade of gray.

In most books, your protagonist is going to be a lighter shade of gray (6-9), being somewhat flawed and occasionally selfish, but ultimately having the moral high-ground over the villains. Similarly, most villains will range from 2-5, though this will vary depending on whether they’re being set up for a redemption arc or if they’re a Complete Monster, as discussed above.

Let’s look at another example, this time from Avatar: the Last Airbender (yes, this series is going to be a major fixture of this Writing Tips series. It’s that good). Aang, our protagonist and arguably the most moral character in the series, sits at a solid nine. In his eyes, all life is precious, even that of a Complete Monster like Ozai. On several occasions, however, Aang acts with selfishness. In “Bato of the Water Tribe,” he hides a message from his friends’ father out of fear that they’ll abandon him. In “The Great Divide,” he resolves a conflict between two opposing tribes by telling them a false story which “corrects” their conflicting histories, instead of addressing the deeper issues fueling their animosity.

Katara, too, has her moments of moral compromise. In “The Waterbending Scroll,” she steals the titular scroll from a group of pirates because of her desperate desire to master waterbending. Later, in “The Southern Raiders,” when she gets a chance to confront the man who killed her mother, she bloodbends one man and nearly kills her mother’s murderer before deciding to show mercy. And though she spares the man’s life, she cannot bring herself to forgive him.

The villains in A:tLA are all darker shades of gray (with the exception of Ozai, who actually is a Complete Monster). While trying to restore his honor, Zuko steals an ostrich-horse, disguises himself as The Blue Spirit to undermine his rival in capturing the Avatar, and betrays his uncle. Yet he has sympathetic motivations. He wants to return home. He wants to regain his status as the crown prince. He wants his father’s love and acceptance. Eventually, Zuko chooses to side with the Avatar, completing what is arguably the most satisfying redemption arc in western animation. On the sliding scale, Zuko goes from a three to an eight--an impressive character arc by any standard.

Azula is a darker shade of gray than Zuko, coming in at about a two. She is ruthless, cunning, and manipulative. Yet in the finale, when we see her emotional break-down (resulting from the betrayal of the friends she abused/controlled for so many years), we do feel sorry for her. She is not redeemed, but there is enough vulnerability in her character that we are sympathetic to her fate, which is part of what makes her breakdown so powerful.

When conceptualizing your characters, it’s a good idea to have each character occupy a slightly different position on the moral scale, both for the sake of incorporating multiple perspectives and for the sake of sparking conflict between characters (even allies/friends). In a future post, we’ll discuss how to move a character from one part of the scale to another when writing a redemption arc or a fall from grace. In the meantime, I hope you’ve found this post helpful.

[curdinway-blog]

Princess Mononoke

“What exactly are you here for?” Prince Ashitaka is asked at one point in Princess Mononoke.  He replies, “To see with eyes unclouded by hate.”  It is a noble pursuit, but easier said than done.  In both our world and the movie, there seems to exist a fundamental lack of understanding.  This failure to connect seeds conflict; in Princess Mononoke, it has bred war between nature and man.

Princess Mononoke is often considered a superior clone of Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind. To call it such is to do both films a tremendous disservice.  While both contain similar elements of subject and plot, occasionally even identical elements, the films are dramatically different tonally and in what they are attempting to convey.  If Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is a fire-and-brimstone sermon told by an equally fiery preacher, Princess Mononoke is more like a carefully researched and concerned dissertation.  Part of the reason for this was that environmentalism was less a fringe topic by 1997 and more universally important than it was in 1984.  Miyazaki himself doubtlessly changed as well.  Age tends to temper passions and bring new, complicating perspectives.  For a modern era and beyond, Miyazaki helmed the project, intending it as his last and most definitive.  

A fundamental change between Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind and Princess Mononoke is the perceived supremacy of nature.  In Nausicaä, the war between man and nature is decidedly one-sided in earth’s favor.  All efforts by men to affect it are futile and self-destructive.  In Princess Mononoke, interestingly, the arrow of dominance has been flipped. This time, man is clearly the domineering force, and nature is in full-blown retreat.  This, I surmise, is much more accurate of the world as we know it. Human beings absolutely possess the ability to override the earth.  This was already true in 1997, even 1984 and beyond, let alone 2017.  We have razed prairies and replaced them with square plots for growing food, knocked down trees to build dens for ourselves, reduced biodiversity to swell the populations of species we find desirable.  If there is indeed a war raging between man and nature, then nature is royally getting its ass kicked.

Of course, the problem with war against nature is that victory is truly pyrrhic.  The domination of humans is only good for us so long as the earth’s infrastructure remains intact; damage it irrevocably and there is hell to pay.  In Princess Mononoke, the moment of nature’s apparent demise leads to a symbolic cloud of death, choking off everyone and everything it comes in contact with.  We are still reliant on this planet, and only this planet, for most of our basic requirements of life; air, water, food, and shelter.  Understanding our tremendous power to shape the world means understanding we have the freedom to end ourselves in the process.  

Another huge change between Princess Mononoke and Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is in their respective considerations of the human element.  In Nausicaä, we are placed firmly on the side of nature. Nature is considered neutral, or even benevolent, until it is provoked; humans are the aggressors.  For the most part, human characters are portrayed as fearful, vain, selfish, and violent.  Their actions provoke global catastrophe in the first place; their continued action means nature strikes them down to preserve balance.  Princess Mononoke has a far different and more sympathetic opinion of man. Humanity is still presented as deeply flawed, with elements of selfishness and pride clearly at play. But we are also, Miyazaki surmises, locked in our own desperate struggle for survival; impossibly unique, sensitive, and altruistic creatures, we are also deeply vulnerable to the cold tidal whims of the universe.  If we have drastically changed the world, then that is because life is harsh. Skyscrapers in place of trees bring us a level of insulation and protection we would not enjoy otherwise; a level of personal comfort we now view as necessary.  In Princess Mononoke, Lady Eboshi at first would appear to be the clear-cut villain in the story; some sort of haughty madwoman bent on natural destruction. Ashikaga’s anger at her reflects our own.  But then, we are introduced to the kingdom of Irontown, and a far different portrait of Eboshi emerges.  She provides lepers, formerly discarded and unwanted souls, a place to call home and a valued purpose; basic human dignity.  Former prostitutes run the bellows for mineral smelting.  Irontown is a shelter for all of the rejects and disvalued of the kingdom; yet despite the relative level of comfort provided, life is still hard and tentative for all its subjects.  Irontown is seen as being under assault nearly the entire course of the movie.  The city is utterly remote, so nature must be suppressed to provide resources and prevent the wilderness from swallowing civilization.  It is remote because that is where valuable and untapped resources are, and Eboshi correctly calculates that the trade value of those resources will afford the encampment value and security from the underlying kingdom.  At the same time, locating the city on the outskirts of the kingdom serves to protect it from opportunistic seizure by the kingdom’s forces.  Lady Eboshi may be vain; there can be little doubt that she enjoys being seen as a leader and savior of her people.  But rarely, if ever, does she seem self-serving; and she is certainly not evil, as much as she is simply pragmatic.  The gray areas encompassed by Princess Mononoke are one of its greatest strengths, and an important topic of discussion in our actual lives.  How does one compare the value of a human life against the beauty of a thousand sunsets? Or the diversity of a rainforest against a chorus of hunger pains?  Currently, DDT, yes, that DDT, is used prevalently in certain regions of Africa. The effects of DDT on bird species and overall ecosystems is well-documented; and yet, thousands of people on the continent die each year from malaria.  In the same way, certain GMO’s such as BT corn have been decried for the toxins they produce and can impart other species to produce; but there are already too many people to feed.  What will happen as we continue to add millions more?  Shouldn’t GMO’s be at least part of that discussion?  When it comes to such difficult underlying issues, there are no easy answers.  Each of us must come to our own appropriations of what merits value.

The greatest difference between Princess Mononoke and its cousin lies in what they seek to address.  Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind seeks to bring our attentions to the issue of ecological destruction.  Princess Mononoke seeks to provide an appropriate solution.  The overall message of the film is tied neatly into the arc of its two main characters. Prince Ashitaga is a village leader who is deeply invested in human welfare; throughout the course of the movie, his experiences with nature cause him to care for and protect it with nearly equal regard.  San, aka Princess Mononoke, is a savage girl who was raised among wolves.  Her initial hatred of men softens when she meets Ashitaga, and hidden human elements and feelings emerge.  Her transformation is more reluctant and incomplete than that of Ashitaga; yet by the end of the movie, she has become an undeniably more tolerant and peaceful character.  The means of solving conflicts is in growing mutual respect, cooperation, and even appreciation.  Unfortunately, in our current society, conflicts over the environment have been marked by an obsession with winning, a phenomenon probably tied into an equally destructive obsession in politics.  Economic success has been planted firmly against natural protection; middle ground has ceased to exist.  Dialogue and legislations are increasingly being made for the wrong reasons; often times, to hurt the opposing side solely for the sake of perceived victory of the other, even when no actual benefit exists.  Understanding is a concept seen as weak or wishy-washy. In fact, it is in the best interest of every person on the planet.  Since when did budget health or environmentalism become singular goals? Aren’t both a mutual interest of everyone?  Nobody wants to breathe air chock-full of suffocating carbon dioxide, or turn half of the world into uninhabitable wasteland.  If someone smirks at you and says they would be fine with it, they are lying.  Or they are refusing to acknowledge what they know, at the back of their minds, is inherently true.

If there is a lesson to be learned from Princess Mononoke, it is that in conflicts, environmental or otherwise, compromise and balance are key.  Environment and human interests are not mutually exclusive goals; they can be accomplished concurrently.  All that is required is a little open-mindedness and human ingenuity.  In cases where concurrent benefit isn’t an option, mediation should be able to produce partial benefits for each side. We are conditioned to believe working together is frustrating or impossible; instead, it is a challenge we should cherish, an engaging and beneficial puzzle.  And it starts with mutual respect; an appreciation for utilities that are less tangible, and equally precious.

There is a moment in Princess Mononoke, following the cloud of death, where a villager gazes awestruck upon a field of blooming blue flowers.  “Huh…I didn’t know the Forest Spirit made the flowers grow,” he murmurs. How carefully will we tend to our own flowers?  Our children will want to see them too.