![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
themadpokerYesterday ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
bookshop wrote a post about women in fandom and it was quite interesting. You should go read it now!
Done? Awesome. I hope you read the comments too because there was some really good stuff there as well.
Anyways I'm writing this post because of an argument I saw pop up in the comments somewhere. The commenter was talking about how she isn't interested on certain female characters (Gwen from Merlin as an example) because they're written as perfect and without flaws. Now before I get into anything else I'd like to say I am not responding against that comment. It is perfectly cool if you're not into Gwen, not everybody is (sad but true. I've learned to accept it). But this argument about 'perfect' characters being boring and without flaws is one I've seen pop up alot in regards to Gwen and I've always wondered why I disagree with it so strongly. I mean obviously flawed characters are more interesting characters right? It's one of those truisms; you don't really question it because it's so patently obvious.
When people say they like X character because he/she is flawed I think there's often an unspoken addendum to that statement. I like X because he/she is flawed and I think the way the story explores his/her flaws and how he/she tries to overcome them/fails to overcome them makes for compelling drama. I will illustrate with examples from Merlin!
In Merlin if we want to look at very obviously flawed characters we have Arthur. He sometimes acts spoiled and inconsiderate of others because he's had such a privileged upbringing and the show acknowledges that. Part of the overarching storyline is watching Arthur learn to stop being such a prat and become the king he will be someday. And everytime he does manage to do that (ex. riding out to help Ealdor in 1x10, speaking out against the new tax in 2x06) we cheer for him. Go Arthur! Someday you will be a great king and I can see the seeds of it right now. I <3 you pratly prince.
But would Arthur be so well liked if he didn't have those moments of grace? I don't think so. I think having Arthur begin as inconsiderate and something of a bully is a good idea because it provides built in conflict to the show. I don't know about everyone else but I don't love him because he's a jerk. I love him because he keeps showing signs he can be better. I think that's the case even within the show (Merlin clearly cares for Arthur quite a bit but I'll bet you anything he wasn't exactly overflowing with love in 2x01 when Arthur decided to use him as a footstool).
So flaws aren't inherently interesting. They're interesting because exploring them or watching the characters overcome them makes for an interesting story. To give kind of a counter-example, I think Merlin as the show writes him displays some scary sociopathic tendencies. He keeps killing magic users and he rarely shows any remorse. And obviously he has his reasons (Merlin is cool with you till you start trying to kill the prince of Camelot. Then you are probably going to end up crushed under a chandelier/fried by magic lightning/thrown up against a wall by magic) but the character point is still there and it's still kind of scary. But the show never acknowledges that. I'm not entirely certain if the showrunners have even noticed it's something that they're writing. But because it stays unacknowledged it never gets explored any further and never fuels any conflict in the storyline. So in the show itself it's not really a 'used' flaw if that makes any sense at all. (Fandom's a different story, I've seen lots of authors pick up on that tendency and run with it. The resulting fic tends to be pretty excellent)
Going back to Gwen then and why I disagree with all these allegations that she's boring because she lacks flaws. Whether or not she has flaws (I am sure she does, she's human. I am equally sure that we don't get to see them as much because the show does not give her anywhere near the necessary amount of screentime to explore them) she definitely has conflict. I read a post ages ago discussing Gwen as a 'Good Girl' and how the poster found her interesting because the circumstances she works under mean she has to be good. She's a servant, she doesn't have the privilege of being visibly rude or self-centred because she could very well lose her position if she does. And then in those rare circumstances where she does have the option to choose between 'good' or 'bad' responses she does the right thing anyway (ex. episode 1x12 where Merlin asks her if she wants Uther dead. He's her friend and for her it's a harmless question, he can't/wouldn't do anything about if she said yes. And she STILL says no). I really wish I could remember where I read that post because it's excellent and I'd like to link it here. But that is certainly one of the most obvious conflicts for Gwen. She says it herself all the time, she's 'just a servant'. It's what makes 2x07 even better because you get to see that moment where she realises that 'yes I am just a servant but it looks like I do have some measure of sway with Arthur. And if I do I should use it because it would be wrong if I didn't do everything I could to stop Gaius dying. Also this is hitting close to home, seeing my friend's father figure threatened with death for similar reasons as my own' (I fangirl 2x07 A LOT, you might notice. It was a really good episode for Gwen!)
How is that not interesting? How is that not conflict? It is maybe not your particular brand of conflict but to dismiss it all and say she's a boring flat good girl is to ignore the efforts the show has made and to flatten her character. I'm not saying that the show doesn't have problems with developing female characters. I really wish that they would give Gwen more storylines independant of the guys. I wish they would take the time to develop both her flaws and her virtues (On that note I know I said I wasn't going to engage with the question of is she a flawed character because I'd rather focus on whether that's really necessary for interest but I'd like to point out her self-esteem issues are a flaw of sorts that she needs to work out. So there is totally both external/internal conflict to explore if you take the time to look). I'm just saying I disagree with this whole type of argument that says a character without a very obvious character flaw is not an interesting one. Unexplored flaws are just as boring as unexplored virtues.
I don't know. I don't really feel like I've got my thoughts completely straight just yet but I'm posting anyways because I'd like to see what the rest of you have to say on the topic. How do you feel about flawed heros? Virtuous heroines? Genderswapped versions of both?
bookshop wrote a post about women in fandom and it was quite interesting. You should go read it now!Please let's stop making ourselves choose. Let's write strong men *and* women, who love each other and love themselves, and fight and have sex or don't have sex, and who love other men, and other women, and who aren't stuck in gender roles that are as rigidly assigned in slash fandom as they are anywhere else.
Done? Awesome. I hope you read the comments too because there was some really good stuff there as well.
Anyways I'm writing this post because of an argument I saw pop up in the comments somewhere. The commenter was talking about how she isn't interested on certain female characters (Gwen from Merlin as an example) because they're written as perfect and without flaws. Now before I get into anything else I'd like to say I am not responding against that comment. It is perfectly cool if you're not into Gwen, not everybody is (sad but true. I've learned to accept it). But this argument about 'perfect' characters being boring and without flaws is one I've seen pop up alot in regards to Gwen and I've always wondered why I disagree with it so strongly. I mean obviously flawed characters are more interesting characters right? It's one of those truisms; you don't really question it because it's so patently obvious.
When people say they like X character because he/she is flawed I think there's often an unspoken addendum to that statement. I like X because he/she is flawed and I think the way the story explores his/her flaws and how he/she tries to overcome them/fails to overcome them makes for compelling drama. I will illustrate with examples from Merlin!
In Merlin if we want to look at very obviously flawed characters we have Arthur. He sometimes acts spoiled and inconsiderate of others because he's had such a privileged upbringing and the show acknowledges that. Part of the overarching storyline is watching Arthur learn to stop being such a prat and become the king he will be someday. And everytime he does manage to do that (ex. riding out to help Ealdor in 1x10, speaking out against the new tax in 2x06) we cheer for him. Go Arthur! Someday you will be a great king and I can see the seeds of it right now. I <3 you pratly prince.
But would Arthur be so well liked if he didn't have those moments of grace? I don't think so. I think having Arthur begin as inconsiderate and something of a bully is a good idea because it provides built in conflict to the show. I don't know about everyone else but I don't love him because he's a jerk. I love him because he keeps showing signs he can be better. I think that's the case even within the show (Merlin clearly cares for Arthur quite a bit but I'll bet you anything he wasn't exactly overflowing with love in 2x01 when Arthur decided to use him as a footstool).
So flaws aren't inherently interesting. They're interesting because exploring them or watching the characters overcome them makes for an interesting story. To give kind of a counter-example, I think Merlin as the show writes him displays some scary sociopathic tendencies. He keeps killing magic users and he rarely shows any remorse. And obviously he has his reasons (Merlin is cool with you till you start trying to kill the prince of Camelot. Then you are probably going to end up crushed under a chandelier/fried by magic lightning/thrown up against a wall by magic) but the character point is still there and it's still kind of scary. But the show never acknowledges that. I'm not entirely certain if the showrunners have even noticed it's something that they're writing. But because it stays unacknowledged it never gets explored any further and never fuels any conflict in the storyline. So in the show itself it's not really a 'used' flaw if that makes any sense at all. (Fandom's a different story, I've seen lots of authors pick up on that tendency and run with it. The resulting fic tends to be pretty excellent)
Going back to Gwen then and why I disagree with all these allegations that she's boring because she lacks flaws. Whether or not she has flaws (I am sure she does, she's human. I am equally sure that we don't get to see them as much because the show does not give her anywhere near the necessary amount of screentime to explore them) she definitely has conflict. I read a post ages ago discussing Gwen as a 'Good Girl' and how the poster found her interesting because the circumstances she works under mean she has to be good. She's a servant, she doesn't have the privilege of being visibly rude or self-centred because she could very well lose her position if she does. And then in those rare circumstances where she does have the option to choose between 'good' or 'bad' responses she does the right thing anyway (ex. episode 1x12 where Merlin asks her if she wants Uther dead. He's her friend and for her it's a harmless question, he can't/wouldn't do anything about if she said yes. And she STILL says no). I really wish I could remember where I read that post because it's excellent and I'd like to link it here. But that is certainly one of the most obvious conflicts for Gwen. She says it herself all the time, she's 'just a servant'. It's what makes 2x07 even better because you get to see that moment where she realises that 'yes I am just a servant but it looks like I do have some measure of sway with Arthur. And if I do I should use it because it would be wrong if I didn't do everything I could to stop Gaius dying. Also this is hitting close to home, seeing my friend's father figure threatened with death for similar reasons as my own' (I fangirl 2x07 A LOT, you might notice. It was a really good episode for Gwen!)
How is that not interesting? How is that not conflict? It is maybe not your particular brand of conflict but to dismiss it all and say she's a boring flat good girl is to ignore the efforts the show has made and to flatten her character. I'm not saying that the show doesn't have problems with developing female characters. I really wish that they would give Gwen more storylines independant of the guys. I wish they would take the time to develop both her flaws and her virtues (On that note I know I said I wasn't going to engage with the question of is she a flawed character because I'd rather focus on whether that's really necessary for interest but I'd like to point out her self-esteem issues are a flaw of sorts that she needs to work out. So there is totally both external/internal conflict to explore if you take the time to look). I'm just saying I disagree with this whole type of argument that says a character without a very obvious character flaw is not an interesting one. Unexplored flaws are just as boring as unexplored virtues.
I don't know. I don't really feel like I've got my thoughts completely straight just yet but I'm posting anyways because I'd like to see what the rest of you have to say on the topic. How do you feel about flawed heros? Virtuous heroines? Genderswapped versions of both?
