Viewing Single Post From: DAYS:Promo for wk of May 25th
May 29 2009, 08:24 PM
- September 5, 2007
Maybe it's just me, but being or not being emotionally invested in a character doesn't change the fact that I expect him/her to be written with a personality, nor do I think a personality means that they ALWAYS behave in a certain manner or that they couldn't be capable of any particular act. That's the interesting part of giving them a personality...because then, when they are put in a particular situation, they may very well be capable of anything or reach the same point as someone else whom they despise, etc, but for different reasons or because of something that pushed their particular buttons. The way things are now, the same problems come up and instead of creating varied situations and solutions because the characters are all different, we get the same problems and same reactions to those problems over and over again. It's a bore.
- May 29 2009, 06:20 PM
- May 29 2009, 06:12 PM
my issue was the generalized idea (so it seemed to me) that just because there are writers, discussing a character's personality is pointless and/or fanwanking.
My point about that was that even if a character says, "So and so is the love of my life," that doesn't mean that will ALWAYS be true. It might be, it might not. I don't consider it to be impermissible of a writer to allow characters to develop and change, and in Philip's case in particular, I see no reason why he has to be tied down to anyone he met before the age of 30 as being the "love of his life." Or, similarly, that even if Belle, for example, was the unrequited love of his life for ten years, that doesn't mean he wouldn't find someone else he loved as much. He could have loved Belle, and Chloe, and Stephanie, and still meet someone five years from now who he loves as much as or more than them. The thing I consider pointless is to say that a character's feelings for any given person are going to be set in stone and will never change. They may be, they may not be--but just because Philip is telling Stephanie she's the love of his life now doesn't mean it can't be true simply because he told someone else that before--or simply because another fanbase prefers him with someone else.
You asked why anyone would invest in characters whose personalities change on a dime, or words to that effect. My answer to that would be, I'm not that emotionally invested in the first place, but to the extent that I am, I don't think every time a character does something I wouldn't write him or her as doing if I were in charge means it's "out of character." People go to the "bad writing" card every time their favorite does something he or she doesn't like, whereas when it's someone they hate they don't pass out the bad writing excuse when they do nasty things (not saying you in particular do that). In real life, people do things that are arguably out of character: Sunday School teachers have affairs, mousy people commit murder, upstanding citizens embezzle money. How many times have we heard "he was such a quiet person, I never thought he'd kill/rape/steal/whatever?" I mean, just because someone doesn't act the same way at 40 as he did at 25 is in and of itself meaningless to me. Sometimes people change. Evangelicals become atheists, sluts reform, it can be as simple as losing interest in a prior activity and picking up something else. People change, so if I like a fictional character before and after he's written differently, I'm ok with that.
re: the bad writing card...there are always people who don't agree about their favorites and rationalize but as many times as bad writing is used as an excuse and probably shouldn't be, there are just as many times when it applies.