Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
selenak: (Eowyn - Kathyh)
[personal profile] selenak
I'll be in Frankfurt for the Book Fair from tomorrow till Sunday. Which means I'll probably get to post, but briefly. I'll also hope to get some clue for the Rygel fic which is proving very stubborn indeed. Kira Nerys, otoh, proved talkative and gave me a drabble, here:

"Messages"

Meanwhile, using her fiendish powers of persuasion, [livejournal.com profile] hobsonphile got me to sign on for a Buffy & Dawn essay for the new ampersand community [livejournal.com profile] otf_manifesto. I also threw in Quark & Rom into the bargain. Go other, oh fellow fan, and sign on for a friendship or family relationship essay! Non-romantic relationships rock, too.

Caused by recent (and old!) fannish reading, I'm also in the process of compiling ten commandments on how to write ambiguous and/or villainous characters. So far, I've accumulated six. Forgive me for venting some pet peeves here. As always, imo:

1. Thou shalt not whitewash. Doesn't mean you don't get to explore your ambiguous and/or villainous character's nicer sides. I know this is more fun and am guilty as charged. (How many stories concentrating on Londo and Refa plotting in season 2 instead of Londo and G'Kar reconciling in season 4 and 5 did you see me write? But I hope I never implied Londo isn't completely responsible for his Narn/Centauri war related actions.) Just as long as your character of choice doesn't sound completely incapable of whatever dastardly deeds canon made him/her responsible for. Speaking of which…


2. Thou shalt not ignore canon thou art uncomfortable with. Some cases in point: Faith actually had some stuff to repent for; the professor she killed in Graduation Day I without knowing or caring why being a case in point. What she did to Xander in Consequences was attempted rape in addition to attempted strangling. Spike, no matter what he believed he was doing, did attempt to rape Buffy in Seeing Red. Methos wasn't a Bronze Age Sundance the Kid as a Horseman; what he did to Cassandra (who is just the victim that survived, as opposed to the many who didn't) remains inexcusable. No matter how sweet he was with Alexa. Avon did intend to kill Vila to survive. He wasn't pretending not to find him; if had known where Vila was hiding in Orbit, he would have gone there once he discovered the cause of the imminent crash. And so on, and so forth.

3. Thou shalt stay away from sexual abuse in thy character's childhood as an excuse. Sexual abuse of children is very difficult to write without trivializing the issue anyway. Granted, some fanfic authors actually manage to pull it off. But all too often I've seen this idea used as a kind of perfect apologia for everything the character in question did in canon. Harry/Hermione/Ginny/Ron finds out Draco gets abused at home and at once feels horribly for ever saying a harsh word to him. Mulder discovers poor Krychek was abused on a regular basis; now doesn't that explain all? Lilah had this evil stepfather who… you get the picture. The thing is, even if this is well-written, it still tends to come across as a cheap sympathy-inducing ploy. Because, really? Say that Krychek was abused as a child. I don't see how this justifies him killing Mulder's father and Scully's sister. Say Kronos was abused as a child. Does this somehow give him a pass for trying to wipe out humanity via a virus in the present or thousand years of slaughter in the past?

Now take an example of canon actually providing the childhood abuse story for a villain. Which
Farscape does for Scorpius. Granted, not sexual abuse, but physical and emotional torture throughout his childhood and early teenage years. This contributes to explaining the emotional make-up of Scorpius, but nowhere does the show imply it somehow justifies him having tortured Stark, or having put John through hell in season 2. In a fanfic story, the revelation of Scorpius' childhood would have resulted in instant bonding between him and the person who finds out about this. On the show, the neural clone of John isn't unaffected by what he sees (hence the "enough" at one point, and the repetition of Rylani's name at another) but understandably asks: "And what about my revenge?"
(Which is probably what Mulder would ask if told of Abused!Krychek's miserable childhood, but that's my theory.)
Similarly, getting introduced to Movieverse!Magneto via his childhood experience in Auschwitz creates instant sympathy and makes his later behaviour understandable. It still doesn't
excuse it. What he wanted to do to Rogue was murder, pure and simple. What he planned to do near the end of X2 was genocide on a global scale. It doesn't get any less so by pointing towards his childhood, and it annoys me to no end if fanfic takes that way out, because canon certainly doesn't.


4. Thou shalt not vilify thy character's opponents. You know what I mean. The Cassandra bashing in Highlander fandom was must my earliest experience of this, but by no means the only one. It's in an ambiguous and/or villainous character's nature that there are assuredly people out there who do not only carry a grudge, but have a perfect right to carry said grudge. I love Londo, but I certainly can understand why Na'Toth in season 5 tells him she still intends to kill him once she gets better. Darla is probably my favourite Jossverse character, but Holtz was completely justified in coming after her and Angelus. (What he did to Connor is another matter; Holtz, of course, is himself ambiguous character whom one understands but does not excuse.) Nor was it surprising the entire A.I. crew distrusted and disliked her.

Now all too often, you encounter the Cassandra pattern in fanfic: that person disliking, resenting or even hating the ambiguous character is suddenly described as a raging psychopath herself/himself, or a narrow-minded judgmental bitch/jerk whose objections can't possibly be taken serious in any way. (Buffy and Xander both get shoved in that corner quite often.) I bet that if
Firefly had continued, we'd gotten fanfics featuring mean, judgmental Zoe and lovable, Misunderstood! Saffron…


5. Thou shalt stay way from the waterworks. Again with the Highlander examples. In the first flush of Methos fascination, I read quite a lot about him, and you couldn't count the number of times he burst into tears and had a nervous breakdown about his past and/or fall-out with MacLeod during the Horsemen eps. Later on, when I discovered Blake's 7, Weepy!Avon made lots of surprise appearances as well. Most noteworthy were those set in PGPs which usually ended with the guy he shot apologizing. As this isn't exactly how these gentlemen behave on the show (I think Methos cried twice, once about Alexa and once about killing Silas immediately after doing so, and that was that in three years; Avon didn't even cry about Anna), I'm back to the "cheap ploy for sympathy" again, along with "out of character" accusations.
Mind you, some ambiguous characters do cry more than once and have nervous breakdowns in canon. (Spike and Londo come to mind.) Still, if they do it in fanfic, I want some similarly plausible causes, and lead-ups. "X doesn't love me/judges me" mostly doesn't do the trick.



6. Thou shalt not use sex to solve thy character's issues. Dukat sure wasn't alone when believing that if he could somehow get Kira to love him, or at least have sex with him, this would equate forgiveness and absolution for his past. It's a time-honoured topos in fanfic. The definite sign Avon gets forgiven by Vila for Orbit or by Blake for Gauda Prime? They end up in bed together. Duncan has trust issues with Methos about those Horseman days? Some great post-Quickening sex, and they're resolved. (Meanwhile, in canon, sex between Buffy and Spike in season 6 makes things worse between them, not better, and all the great sex in the world between Wesley and Lilah doesn't create enough trust for either of them not to use the other.) Which is why I'm all agog over story's like Kakodaimon's who start the morning after and acknowledge that all the original difficulties and burdens of the past are still there.

Date: 2004-10-04 08:32 am (UTC)
minim_calibre: (Default)
From: [personal profile] minim_calibre
Wonderful! I can't wait to see the next four!

Thank you! And...

Date: 2004-10-04 02:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com
I see that several people below have made useful suggestions for the next four - I'll have a lot to pick from.*g*

Nice one: Hope you don't mind...

Date: 2004-10-04 08:51 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] londonkds.livejournal.com
Thou shalt not hold other characters primarily responsibler for thy character's acts

Londo was not an innocent until he met Morden. Spike did not do all his more malevolent acts just to impress Angelus and Dru. Anakin's fall is not solely due to Obi-Wan's poor mentoring skills.

Re: Nice one: Hope you don't mind...

Date: 2004-10-04 09:06 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] persephone-kore.livejournal.com
Stryfe's behavior is surely influenced by having been encouraged as a child in behavior like incinerating his tutors for trying to make him do homework, but as he somehow managed to develop a (rather warped, but still) sense of right and wrong eventually anyway, he is entirely responsible for then proceeding to ignore it.

Re: Nice one: Hope you don't mind...

Date: 2004-10-04 02:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com
Forgive my ignorance - who is Stryfe?

Re: Nice one: Hope you don't mind...

Date: 2004-10-04 03:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] persephone-kore.livejournal.com
X-Men villain, basically. Due to the vagaries of Marvel continuity, he was created without an actual backstory; what it ended up being was... okay, let me outline...

1. At some point, Scott Summers' (Cyclops-leader-of-the-X-Men's) daughter (adult) is essentially lost to the timestream.
2. At a later point, Scott Summers' toddler son Nathan is infected with a bizarre virus. A time-traveler turns up and insists that the child is very important to her people in the future, and they may be able to save him, while 20th-century technology can't. Scott lets Nathan go.
3. Several centuries later, Nathan is cloned. Both survive.
4. The (very long-lived) megalomaniac responsible for the virus attacks, wishing to capture Nathan. He gets the clone. The template is rescued and cared for by a loving family. The clone is named Stryfe by the megalomaniac, now a world ruler, and raised to be an utter spoilt brat. I suspect this is because he didn't want anybody to miss the kid, considering that
5. When Stryfe is twelve and a powerful telepath and telekinetic, but inexperienced, the megalomaniac attempts to take over his body. This is thwarted by Nathan and his adoptive family, but the parents are lost and Nathan has to flee.
6. They grow up, wind up on different sides of a war/rebellion, and hate each other a lot.
7. They both go back in time to the 20th century and continue.
8. Stryfe turns out to think he's the original and resent Scott for giving him up. He is accordingly seeking to kill the megalomaniac for revenge on his own behalf and, so he claims, the world's. (See reference to having acquired and ignored a sense of right and wrong.) He is also seeking to humiliate Scott. He ends up dead, and shortly afterward, a difficult-to-open package that he left with an unscrupulous scientist opens up and releases a (different) deadly virus.

That was more than you wanted to know, wasn't it?

Re: Nice one: Hope you don't mind...

Date: 2004-10-04 03:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] persephone-kore.livejournal.com
Er, yes. Important to note: this is comicverse. Movieverse bears some relation in terms of characterization to the comics, but while they've kept some favorite themes and events, they've rearranged things pretty thoroughly. I don't think they want to get into the time-travel fun.

thanks for the intel!

Date: 2004-10-04 10:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com
...and once more, I notice that certain Jossverse plotlines show him and the other writers having read X-Men comics rather avidly...

I don't mind at all...

Date: 2004-10-04 02:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com
Especially since this is so true. (And good examples!)

Yes, but then there's Delenn

Date: 2004-10-04 09:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] deborah-judge.livejournal.com
1. 'In the Beginning' (a fanfic of an episode if there ever was one) shows that she really tried to stop the E/M war as soon as she could.

2. Delenn's manipulative and cruel treatment of Neroon regarding Branmer gets dropped immediately. Not to mention all the evidence for how powerful she is gets dropped to make her powerless during the E/M war.

3. (I'll think I'll have to leave this one out - I've never seen abused!Delenn)

4. Remember the Earth interviewer who made some very good points about how Delenn's change might have been offensive to human survivors of the E/M war? Remember how the entire press became Evil?

5. As I recall, Delenn started crying during that interview, to show how badly she was being victimized by the Evil press.

6. I could rant about this for pages, but you already know what I have to say.

What's amazing is that despite all this she manages to be an interesting character - that it is possible to still see how dark she actually is.

Re: Yes, but then there's Delenn

Date: 2004-10-04 11:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com
Just goes to show: it's not good when male writers fall too much in love with their female characters.*g*

Though to be fair, I think the media would have become evil regardless because what it really did was become controlled by the state and turned into propaganda, and that does happen in a dictatorship. Also, both the momment when ISN was stormed and later the first broadcast of a freed ISN was coded to have us root for these particular members of the media.

Date: 2004-10-04 09:16 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dylant.livejournal.com
6. Thou shalt not use sex to solve thy character's issues.

Definitely, and it's interesting, looking at your examples, to realize that the Jossverse especially acknowledges that this is no way out.

Date: 2004-10-04 09:22 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ide-cyan.livejournal.com
Hear, hear!

Great list. I heartily approve every single point.

Date: 2004-10-04 09:43 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ide-cyan.livejournal.com
Do you take suggestions?...

- Thou shall not create an even more loathesome villain simply to make thy character's actions seem benign in comparison.

- Thou shall not endow thy character's enemies with information they could only possess if they were granted thine own outside perspective on the story.

- Thou shall not despatch villains via some gruesome death simply because thou hatest them. Thou shalt especially avoid decapitations and falls from a great height.

But..but...

Date: 2004-10-04 01:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] leadensky.livejournal.com
Heh. *Canon* has violated each of these in Farscape. Which should prove that they're *good* rules, I think. *g*

- Thou shall not create an even more loathesome villain simply to make thy character's actions seem benign in comparison.

Grazia (Captain Cleavage)

- Thou shall not endow thy character's enemies with information they could only possess if they were granted thine own outside perspective on the story.

Well, the writers went and had Scorpi give John his (previously shown to the viewer) childhood raising info.

-Thou shall not despatch villains via some gruesome death simply because thou hatest them. Thou shalt especially avoid decapitations and falls from a great height.

Mama Sun, in The Choice. Except that if you hold to the "stepped on" theory of bodycounts, Mama Sun isn't dead.

I like your suggested rules, though. And the whole list.

- hg

He *g*

Date: 2004-10-04 02:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com
But did the writers kill off Mama Sun because they hated her or to torment Aeryn some more?

And thank you.

Re: But..but...

Date: 2004-10-04 09:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ide-cyan.livejournal.com
Grayza's introduction was as a hierarchical superior to Scorpius, which, given his position in a military line of command, is hardly shocking. And her actions never made his more benign by comparison. She wanted to sell out allies, he wants genocide, remember?

Well, the writers went and had Scorpi give John his (previously shown to the viewer) childhood raising info.

Yes. They didn't magically put the knowledge in his head out of nowhere. You wouldn't believe the number of stories I've seen where, for instance, the Jedi heroes suddenly revile Senator Palpatine, simply because the viewer knows he's also Darth Sidious.

And Xhalax's fall, as [livejournal.com profile] selenak points out, served a different dramatic purpose.

More Farscape breaking the rules...

Date: 2004-10-06 10:20 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] veritykindle.livejournal.com
-Thou shall not endow thy character's enemies with information they could only possess if they were granted thine own outside perspective on the story.

Also, in Season 4, John had flashbacks to things that had happened to the other John on Talyn. (And made vague references to things only the other John would know, like the personality of Aeryn's mother in The Prefect Murder.) At least we saw Scorpy give John his chldhood info. Those flashbacks were never explained. (And I doubt they will ever be...)

-Thou shall not despatch villains via some gruesome death simply because thou hatest them. Thou shalt especially avoid decapitations and falls from a great height.

Xhalax's fall, as [info]selenak points out, served a different dramatic purpose.

Then what about Durka the Headsickle? (Although really, I think there should be some kind of amnesty for when a muppet does the actual decapitating. *g* )

But hey, all rules were made to be broken, right? ;)

Re: But..but...

Date: 2004-10-05 08:45 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] madsdog.livejournal.com
*- Thou shall not create an even more loathesome villain simply to make thy character's actions seem benign in comparison.

*Grazia (Captain Cleavage)

Scorpius was introduced in the same fashion (to be worse than Crais)

Thank you, and...

Date: 2004-10-04 02:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com
I do take suggestions. Though I am amused that yours (which make much sense) were broken by Farscape, as [livejournal.com profile] leadensky points out below.

Mind you, the "falls from great heights" are a particular peeve of mine in general, because they're usually given to villains in order not to let the heroes kill them close-up.

Date: 2004-10-04 09:35 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] artaxastra.livejournal.com
Yesy yes. There is a big difference between justify and explain. Lots of things explain someone without justifying their actions. What fascinates me is the exploration of the lines between justifiable and unjustifiable. That's one of the reasons I love DS9 -- we're clearly supposed to see Kira as on the side of the angels, but is it only her motivations that separate her from Dukat? Do they in fact do so? We explore this question time and again from different angles, and are never given a satisfactory answer.

Ditto X Men. Really, the history of their next 50 years has to judge whether Magneto or Xavier is right -- depending on which is really precient about what the future will bring. One or the other will be villified, or at least considered deeply and tragically misguided. At this point, the Gentle Reader or Viewer doesn't know which. Certainly in comicsverse, the futures seem more and more apocalyptic for mutantkind.

Is it really all about where you stand? Or is there some universal principle? Where are the lines? These are questions humanity has explored since at least the works of Euripedes, and we're not tired of them yet!

Date: 2004-10-04 02:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com
What fascinates me is the exploration of the lines between justifiable and unjustifiable. That's one of the reasons I love DS9 -- we're clearly supposed to see Kira as on the side of the angels, but is it only her motivations that separate her from Dukat? Do they in fact do so? We explore this question time and again from different angles, and are never given a satisfactory answer.

Alas, that is why I think DS9 would never be produced today, at least not the way it was then, and with Kira as a sympathetic main character.

Anyway, yes. And all those ambiguities are taken away if you just declare one character (doesn't matter whether this is the protagonist or antagonist in the original narrative) to be perfect and right on all things, or just eternally misunderstood. One robs the character of his/her richness this way.

And here's some more I'd like to add...

Date: 2004-10-04 09:36 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] deborah-judge.livejournal.com
Thou shalt not make thy characters unrealistically young in order to reduce their moral responsibility.

Delenn is way too young to make any sense - but having her somehow starting a genocidal war in her early 20s makes it look like she was inexperienced and vulnerable to the manipulations of others. And the younger someone is, the harder it is to hold them fully morally accountable.

I'm even more bothered by Kira having become a terrorist at age 12. I suppose it was necessary, in order to show how she could be an accomplished millitary leader while still young enough for her body to hold the interest of the adolescent male demographic. But it completely absolves her of any moral responsibility in the decision to become a terrorist. All her moral deliberations have to be in retrospect.

and how about:
Just because something works, that doesn't mean it was the morally correct decision.

I have in mind Shakaar's uprising against Winn, but Sheridan declaring war against Earth could also work as a morally ambiguous decision that was whitewashed by the outcome.

Re: And here's some more I'd like to add...

Date: 2004-10-04 11:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com
The age factor: I thought in the case of Kira that her joining that early was a reflection of what was actually going on in certain highly controversial regions on Earth.

Moreover, in the flashbacks we do get (for example, Necessary Evil) she's an adult and thus fully responsible for what she's doing.

All this being said I do think the age of both Delenn and Kira was mandated by the rule of TV that says leading ladies have to be in their early thirties at the latest. All the more reason to appreciate Winn actually being of the right age for someone in her position.*g*

Re: morally correct decisions - there are a couple of decisions in the later seasons of DS9 which do get the right results and are still coded as morally ambiguous or downright wrong. Wait for some truly classic episodes. Arguably Sheridan's decision to use the frozen telepaths was presented as morally ambiguous as well, hence Dr. Franklin's observations before and Bester's sharp comments after.

Civil War/Rebellion per se is, now that I think of it, basically always coded as the right thing to do in American fantasy and sci-fi. On the rebellion = good thing premise. Which on the one hand fits with the origins of the nation thing, but otoh does not fit with the presentation of the American Civil War and the South in general.

Re: And here's some more I'd like to add...

Date: 2004-10-13 09:48 am (UTC)
ext_2353: amanda tapping, chris judge, end of an era (Default)
From: [identity profile] scrollgirl.livejournal.com
All this being said I do think the age of both Delenn and Kira was mandated by the rule of TV that says leading ladies have to be in their early thirties at the latest.

Oh yes, that is such an annoying TV dictate. I get why they wanted Kira to have been a kid when she first joined the resistence, but it feels like such a cheat that the writers made her younger than Bashir -- when in reality Nana Visitor is 8 years older than Siddig.

Re: And here's some more I'd like to add...

Date: 2004-10-13 10:12 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com
But were we ever told Kira was younger than Bashir? I mean, I'm horrible at maths, so I might have missed it. Bashir turns 30 in season 3, so we have his age; is there any statement that Kira is younger than 30 at this point?

Re: And here's some more I'd like to add...

Date: 2004-10-13 10:20 am (UTC)
ext_2353: amanda tapping, chris judge, end of an era (Default)
From: [identity profile] scrollgirl.livejournal.com
Yes, I remember them stating... dammit, I don't remember the ep. But I remember them saying (perhaps retroactively) that Kira is 26 in Season 1. And of course we know from "The Emissary" that Bashir is 27.

I also find it amusing/annoying that in my Star Trek: DS9 Companion book that they ret-con Jadzia's age so that she's the same age as Bashir, when we know from "The Emissary" that she was 28 (and then Sisko teased her about being 328).

Re: And here's some more I'd like to add...

Date: 2004-10-13 10:29 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com
They what? Ah well. I don't consider any of the tie-ins canon anyway. That way lies madness. They're published fanfic, no more.

Date: 2004-10-04 09:46 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] penknife.livejournal.com
I like your list of pet peeves. My (somewhat lengthy) thoughts:

Thou shalt not whitewash.

To which I would add, thou shalt not make your character sorry for doing things that he has no business being sorry about, because he clearly thought they were a good idea at the time and nothing has happened to make him change his mind.

Thou shalt not ignore canon thou art uncomfortable with.

I agree, although I do think often there are two sides to stories, and an author can do a good job of showing why the villain thinks he's in the right without implying that the author agrees with him. And the same rules have to apply to heroes and villains -- for instance, I don't think it's fair to blame souled!Spike for having tried to rape Buffy while a soulless vampire and to give Angel a free pass for everything he did/does as Angelus.

Thou shalt stay away from sexual abuse in thy character's childhood as an excuse.

I agree, but I think that while abusive or traumatic childhoods make poor excuses for villainous behavior, they're sometimes good explanations for it. I think it's impossible to explain what makes Magneto tick without looking at the things he decided were true about the world based on his experiences in the Holocaust, for instance. Snape is implied to have a rotten family life and explicitly shown to be the victim of bullying as a teenager, and I think that's relevant to explaining why he's so nasty to his students; I don't think that excuses him being so nasty to his students.

Thou shalt not vilify thy character's opponents.

ITA. Although I think this happens to heroes even when it's not an attempt to make the villains look good by comparison. Just as people can get too wrapped up in showing the good side of villains, sometimes people are trying to explore the dark side of heroes and forget that these are people who actually have plenty of canonical virtues.

Thou shalt stay way from the waterworks.

Heh. I admit, I'm a sucker for stories that push stoic characters to the point of messy emotional breakdowns. I agree, though, that they're easy to screw up, usually because

A) the author vastly underestimates what it would take to make the character fall apart, and writes him sobbing over events he would take in stride in canon, or

B) the author vastly overestimates the cathartic value of an emotional breakdown, and assumes it will solve all the character's problems and lead him to repent of his sins.

I think you could write Magneto crying in the aftermath of X2 without it being OOC, for instance; I just don't think it would fix anything.

Thou shalt not use sex to solve thy character's issues.

I agree, although I think there are characters who would express forgiveness this way. But "we had sex, therefore of course all is forgiven" is silly.

Date: 2004-10-04 02:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com
To which I would add, thou shalt not make your character sorry for doing things that he has no business being sorry about, because he clearly thought they were a good idea at the time and nothing has happened to make him change his mind.

Quite. Hence my not buying stories in which Magneto deeply regrets what he (almost) did to Rogue, for example.

I don't think it's fair to blame souled!Spike for having tried to rape Buffy while a soulless vampire and to give Angel a free pass for everything he did/does as Angelus.

Oh absolutely. That's why it drove me bonkers when Angel and Angelus suddenly referred to each other in the third person in season 4. (One of my few season 4 complaints.) Thankfully, in season 5 we were back to first person for both the souled and the soulless state, probably because Angel realized he couldn't very well do this two persons thing with Spike around.

Date: 2004-10-05 05:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dlgood.livejournal.com
That's why it drove me bonkers when Angel and Angelus suddenly referred to each other in the third person in season 4.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he only did that in front of other people, and only after they'd introduced the concept of Angel & Angelus as separate entities. So one could wank that as Angel soft-pedaling things to other characters for reasons relating to those particular relationships, rather than Angel himself believing in seperate entities.

What the writers were trying to do, other than coming up for a reason for the characters to actually want to take away the soul (which seemed necessary as pretet to spring Faith from prison) I don't know.

On a larger scale, the primary point is for the writer to try to treat/view the characters with some degree of even-handedness from an authorial perspective. If what Angel does without a soul is unconnected to Angel with a soul, then the same ought to apply to Spike and Darla, or any other individual that loses and regains a soul. If one posits that what Angel does without a soul is connected to who Angel is with the soul, then that applies to the other characters as well....

Caveat

Date: 2004-10-05 10:08 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] alara-r.livejournal.com
Quite. Hence my not buying stories in which Magneto deeply regrets what he (almost) did to Rogue, for example.

If you can justify it in the story, then it's ok. After all, one of the major turning points of comic Magneto's history is the moment when, after almost killing a teenage mutant, he realizes that everything he's been doing is wrong, and comes to regret all of it. If the story has a moment of epiphany where Erik is shown *why* almost killing Rogue was wrong, and understands it, then okay. Otherwise, yes, you can't just tell me "Oh, he deeply regrets it" without any canon evidence (I mean, "I love what you did with your hair" doesn't show much evidence that he regrets it at all.)

Re: Caveat

Date: 2004-10-05 02:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. If the story itself leads him from not seeing it as wrong to realising it was wrong, explains why he changes his mind, and is well-written, I can believe it. If the story starts out postulating he thinks it's wrong, and I have simply canon to fall back on, which as you say rather indicates he doesn't, then I can't suspend disbelief.

Date: 2004-10-04 11:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] houses7177.livejournal.com
This was beautifully written. Do you mind me linking here from my own journal? If no, let me know and I'll delete the link.

It details so many issues I've had with reading fanfics, and why I rarely branch out now. Too often I've slogged through the breakdowns and miracle sex. It's just not worth it. But, readers and writers must like these cliches, or a number must, because they're out there.

It's also why people don't seem to like my fanfic world of semi- unhappy endings and unresolved relationships. Reading realistic things turns a lot people off, I've found, and have had several reviewers say so. They don't want to read a fanfic where even if everyone lives in the end, it certainly doesn't mean they're happy, or lucky, or even heros. It just means they're living- and it's complicated, screwy, and miserable at times.

A lot of readers read fanfic for escapism- where they can have the happy ending wish fulfillment they wanted on the show and never got. While these stories are fine, for some part, they do a great injustice to the complexity of the original work. I'm primarily a BtVS/AtS writer, and to have everyone slay off into the sunset with smiles on their faces and all issues forgiven would be to cheat the story. Give me a world where there are no neat packages.

Down with neat packages!

Date: 2004-10-04 02:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com
And no, of course I don't mind - I feel flattered, thank you.

Regarding fanfic: what I really don't get are "character death" disclaimers. What novel, what tv show, what movie would advertise a crucial plot point with "character death"?

Re: Down with neat packages!

Date: 2004-10-04 09:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ide-cyan.livejournal.com
Aside from Kill Bill?... hm....

Re: Down with neat packages!

Date: 2004-10-04 10:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com
Kill Bill - the ultimate character death disclaimer title. So true.*g* However, methinks a story called either "Kill John" or "Kill Scorpius" would raise objections...

Date: 2004-10-04 08:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 0lesserknown0.livejournal.com
Preach it.

We should pass this out...before you can write fanfiction, you must memorize the RULES. :-)

Good stuff.

Date: 2004-10-04 10:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com
Thank you - I'm sending it to MissH to hand out at BAFU right now.*g*

Date: 2004-10-05 10:23 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] alara-r.livejournal.com
1. Thou shalt not whitewash.

Agreed completely. Sometimes you can find reasons why the things the bad guys do are not as bad as *canon* makes them out to be-- especially in canons where the creators are comfortable with So-And-So Is Bad Because He's Bad, even when they drop hints that there's more than that. But trying to tell us that they are, in fact, genuinely good people is probably going too far. (I'm thinking of Battle of the Planets fanfiction, in which sympathetic writers of Zoltar, ruler of Spectra, totally glom onto the fact that he's fighting to save his people to refute the series' portrayal of him as EEEEEvil, and forget that, yes, he really is willing to experiment on small children and murder civilians to achieve his goals, noble though they may be.)

2. Thou shalt not ignore canon thou art uncomfortable with.

Unless you are working in a fandom where canon has enormous self-contradictions, such as, oh, X-Men comicverse. If you want to pretend Magneto never escaped from prison by studying yoga, or that Mr. Sinister was never impersonating a small child in Scott Summers' orphanage... more power to you. But if you're going to ignore canon, it has to be canon which is stupid and nonsensical in the light of other canon, not just stuff you wish the character didn't do.

3. Thou shalt stay away from sexual abuse in thy character's childhood as an excuse.

Sexual abuse, in *particular*, because very often you could use physical abuse instead, and having it always be sexual produces this uncomfortable almost-fetishizing of molestation in fanfic. Childhood physical or emotional abuse is actually probably going to be present in the childhood of most villains, or they wouldn't be villains. It will be present in many ambiguous characters-- Avon, for instance, may well have suffered emotional abuse as a child, because clearly as an adult he is paranoid and mistrustful, and Anna Grant alone can't explain the severity of it. But always having it be sexual molestation does trivialize molestation, and isn't realistic, and sometimes wouldn't make sense (there are characters who it is hard to imagine would genuinely care if they were sexually abused. Scorpius, for instance, was so thoroughly fucked up by the physical and emotional abuse he endured it's awfully unlikely he would have particularly noticed sexual abuse as anything all that awful in comparison.)

And yes, as you point out, it can be a reason but not an excuse.

4. Thou shalt not vilify thy character's opponents. You know what I mean.

Oh, god, yes. If you're going to declare that Good Is Evil and Evil Is Good, at least do us the favor of admitting it's an AU.

I bet that if Firefly had continued, we'd gotten fanfics featuring mean, judgmental Zoe and lovable, Misunderstood! Saffron…

That is a deeply scary thought.

5. Thou shalt stay way from the waterworks.

There are characters who do, legitimately, cry. But as you say, probably not because so-and-so doesn't wuv them.

I think most of my feelings on the matter boil down to these as well. I might add to the waterworks one that hurt/comfort is all very well and good, but have some realistic notion of what your character fears, what he can handle, and what will upset him. Avoid turning hard-edged bad guys into weepy waifs. Also, just because they have found True Love doesn't mean they are all of a sudden going to explain themselves to death.

Date: 2004-10-05 02:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com
Also, just because they have found True Love doesn't mean they are all of a sudden going to explain themselves to death.

Methinks if Avon ever suggested a "let's talk about our feelings" conversation to Blake, complete with revelations about his childhood and adult life until the Liberator, Blake would immediately suspect he was dealing with conditioned clone.*g*

Date: 2004-10-06 10:17 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] se-parsons.livejournal.com
Pointed here by [livejournal.com profile] leadensky

A suggested one:

If your character is clearly sane but evil or at least has done some evil things, a complete turnaround in attitude short of religious conversion/brainwashing or a mindwipe shouldn't happen in the story.

Twoo wuv is NEVER a reason for such a conversion. Krycek is not going to suddenly slap a hand to his head and say, "killin' folks is NEVER right!" because he's had hot, hot sex with Mulder or whatever.

Villains are just as much a hero of their own stories as any hero is and they believe they are fully justified in their actions in their own heads, or they should be. We often see them as characters in someone else's story, but in their own heads, they should be the hero. The actor who played CSM on the X-Files said that about his character "He's a hero. He's saving the world", and he was dead right. And in the X-Men as mentioned above, Magneto is another example of this. He is convinced he's the one that KNOWS HOW THINGS ARE. And that MEASURES MUST BE TAKEN to ensure that his worldview dominates. That's good villain thinking there.

If you thought what you were doing was wrong, you wouldn't do it. Unless you're shady and there was some other kind of advantage in it for you. Too many people sweep that stuff aside and thus change the essential nature of the character they're trying to write especially if they are uncomfortable with moral ambiguity.

Date: 2004-10-10 11:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com
Excellent point and very true. The better characterized a villain in canon is, the more it's likely he has his or her cemented reasons and convictions, and is not likely to abandon them anymore than the hero is suddenly to sell out (for that would be how the villain would see it).

Date: 2004-10-06 10:42 am (UTC)
gelliaclodiana: (Default)
From: [personal profile] gelliaclodiana
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Especially to this: Thou shalt not vilify thy character's opponents. (Although I think Cassandra's an ambiguous character in her own right, everything she does makes perfect sense.)

I would make only one additional suggestion: there is no "h" in Krycek.

Date: 2004-10-06 11:52 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com
Mea culpa. (It's been a while since I read Mr. K.'s name.*g*) Cassandra is certainly no saint herself; but neither is she the villain in this particular situation, and a lot of fanfic back in the day made her into it.

Fanfic-wise, I like Parda's take on Cassandra, and found Parda's Methos to be far more interesting and true to the one I've seen on screen than many a Methos apologia. And of course I had my own slightly different take on C. and M., expressed in my first foray into online fanfic, back in the day...

Just thought of another one

Date: 2004-10-08 02:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] londonkds.livejournal.com
Don't whitewash the text because the subtext gives you hives.

Big problem in the Jossverse. In particular people tend to whitewash Faith and Lilah because they see their canon characterisation as embodying reactionary attitudes to women. If you were pissed off by Faith's Season Three characterisation because you don't think voracious female sexuality is a sign of near-sociopathic disfunction and the first step to rape, murder and torture, write an angry essay about it or a satirical AU. Don't say that Faith was hard-done by in AtS4/BtVS7 (because she was the most convincing portrayal of genuine, non-magic-wand-waving redemption ME ever managed) or write fic ignoring the rape, murder and torture.

And over half the Spike whitewashing comes from people who committed themselves to seeing Spuffy as Healing the Meaningless Racial Divide.

But then again

Date: 2004-10-08 02:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] londonkds.livejournal.com
I may be hypocritical here - I've been bashing Angel a lot lately in essays and half-assed fic because AtS5 pissed me off politically.

Re: Just thought of another one

Date: 2004-10-10 11:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] selenak.livejournal.com
It's a subsection of the "don't whitewash", but probably deserves to be its own commandment, since the cause for whitewashing isn't quite the same...

Profile

selenak: (Default)
selenak

February 2026

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Page generated Feb. 6th, 2026 03:28 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios