“When I created Yennefer’s character I wanted Geralt to fully grow, but then I decided to make things complicated. I created a female character who refuses to be a fantasy stereotype. To please the reader.” — Andrzej Sapkowski (via shinesdifferently)
Rule: When analyzing or critiquing media, you can not defend a problematic aspect of media by saying that a character CHOSE to do it, and that people are allowed to CHOSE to do things.
Because fictional characters do not have the capacity to make choices. Because they are not REAL people.
Power Girl and Starfire did not CHOOSE to fight evil in skimpy, revealing outfits. It is not their PERSONAL CHOICE to wear those clothes. They are fictional characters and their wardrobes are under the control of the author and artist.
Dumbledore did not CHOOSE to stay in the closet as a personal and professional choice because that was his right as a person. He is a fictional character. The fact that his sexuality was left at only vague subtext and only revealed through word of god was a deliberate decision made by the author.
Fictional characters are fictional characters. They do not make their own choices.
but thats the thing.
in canon. they did. im guessing you dont actually like their comics. because they choose to wear that. its part of whom they are. nice try tho op
You know that fictional characters are not REAL people who can REALLY make REAL choices, right? They are CREATED and CONTROLLED through deliberate actions of their writers.
Dumbledore can’t CHOOSE to stay in the closet because Dumbledore isn’t REAL. Free will does not apply to non-existent people.
I don’t get it. By this logic, they don’t really do anything. The point is that they’re depicting free will, of course they’re not real people. What is your point?
That if there is something problematic or unsavory about how a character is depicted, you can’t write it off as “well, the character CHOSE to do this.” Because they didn’t. A writer CHOSE to have a woman, or a gay man, or who ever, be shown doing these things.
An ACTUAL REAL WOMAN did not CHOOSE to wear a superhero costume with a boob window. A writer and an artist made that choice. So you can’t hand wave away those elements by saying that it’s ok because the character CHOSE it.
Ok, but what about your example with dumbledore? His character choosing to stay in the closet shows us something about his character and the world around him.
I don’t think writers typically make choices for their characters just to make them use free will lol these choices intentionally show us things the author wants people to know or figure out, or on the other hand, not know.
But Dumbledore DIDN’T choose that, because as a fictional made up not real person, he can’t make choices like that. In fact, him being “in the closet” is never even examined or discussed. JKR just never revealed that Dumbledore was gay until post publication, which leads the audience to view him as closeted.
And we don’t really know WHAT that is supposed to tell us about the world or the character, beyond the fact that JKR didn’t think it was important enough, in the book that specifically explored the hidden secret backstory of a character, to even hint that he might be gay.
And there is something problematic about the ONLY LGBT+ character in a cast of dozens upon dozens of named characters being SO DEEP in the closet that JKR had to mention it in an interview for people to know.
And the point, not to get overly distracted by Dumbledore as an example, is that we can’t judge these elements as personal choices of the characters. We have to judge them as deliberate decisions by the creator. A male writer choosing to put his female heroes in busty skimpy outfits is not WOMEN choosing to embrace their sexuality through body positivity. A heterosexual author writing her only gay character deep in the closet is NOT a real gay man choosing to keep his personal life a secret for his own comfort.
So, if a female author had chosen to put her superheroes in revealing clothes, you would have been alright with that?
I’m getting real sick of this “only modesty is empowering” narrative.
This logic dictates that J.K. Rowling is an accessory to mass murder.
After all, SHE made Voldemort kill all those people.
You are aware that Harry Potter isn’t REAL right?
Like, Fictional Characters are not real and conscious entities shouldn’t be a hard concept.
Then why is it a problem when a fictional character wears skimpy clothing?
It’s not always a problem. It can be a problem when it is done purely to objectify female characters and serves no narrative purpose. It’s often lazy character design and poor writing that devalues women as both parts of the narrative AND part of the audience.
Fiction serves a purpose. It impacts us, the way we view situations and, studies have shown, helps us develop and practice empathy. So when women or minorities are handled in negative, problematic, or stereotypical ways in fiction, it is within our rights as audience members to critique those portrayals.
But that doesn’t mean fictional characters are real people.
I hated these theory conversation in upper level English classes because somehow people don’t get it. Fiction is a construction, nothing happens without someone on a meta level making a decision. Anything a character does, especially the PROTAGONIST and the ANTAGONIST do is a comment the AUTHOR is making.
Something that might help with this discourse is some vocab. The AUTHOR is involved with all parts of the story and the characters. They make narrative decisions and statements within their work, both intentionally and unintentionally. So you as a reader need to be aware of something called AUTHOR INTENT or rather what the AUTHOR is or is trying to do with plot and characters and their actions.
AUTHOR INTENT
is something that as a viewer/reader/consumer of media you need to be aware of. Counter to this is READER’S INTERPRETATION. What you get out of a piece of fiction as well as whether or not you like it is because of your READER’S INTERPRETATION of a piece of work.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL, or material outside of the TEXT, or main body of work, often color a READER’S INTERPRETATION more than they inform about an AUTHOR’S INTENT.
if u were a gifted/talented child who grew into an anxious adult w fragile self worth and a perfectionist streak that makes u abandon things if ur not good at them immediately clap ur hands
Do these people realize that this is a quote from a fictional dude who was literally set on fire and thrown into the grand canyon because he failed at leading an army of post-apocalyptic barbarians?
It has been 6 years and I am still salty about the completely unnecessary changes to the timeline, turning the battle of Reach from the Covenant absolutely steamrolling the planet with all their might in the space of a few hours to a month long series of relatively small skirmishes.
Here’s the dates for each mission:
Winter Contingency: July 24th
ONI Sword Base: July 26th (skip 2 days)
Nightfall: August 11th (skip 16 days)
Tip of the Spear: August 12th
Long Night of Solace: August 14th (skip 2 days)
Exodus: August 23rd (skip 9 days)
New Alexandria: August 23rd to August 26th (skip 3 days)
The Package: August 29th (skip 3 days)
The Pillar of Autumn: August 30th
Lone Wolf: August 30th
What’s the point of turning it into a month long campaign if we only see just over a week’s worth of events?
Some of these time jumps were just downright nonsensical. Why did there have to be SIXTEEN DAYS between the second and third mission? The entire game takes place on one continent, Eposz, so it’s not like they’re having to travel across the galaxy to get from place to place.
Exodus skipping 9 whole days from the end of Long Night of Solace makes no sense either. We’re supposed to believe that Six, after awakening from falling from the Ardent Prayer, just hobbled over to the city of New Alexandria over the course of 9 days without anything going on…
If they’d turned the battle of Reach into a week long event, I could deal with that. It could have had you starting out with small reconnaissance groups of Covenant in the first act of the game as they start setting up shop to gather intel about the planet and the locations of its Forerunner artefacts in order to prepare for the Fleet of Particular Justice’s arrival.
Instead, Bungie contrived that the Covenant somehow managed to cloak a 2900 kilometre long super carrier and multiple corvettes, as well as land a bunch of big-ass transportation spires to a completely open area of desert, when all some soldiers doing training drills would have to do to spot them (as camouflage generates a hell of a lot of heat) is look in its general direction with thermal goggles on. Or, a weather satellite passing over might picked up an anomalous heat signature that looks suspiciously like a big-ass Covenant ship.
We’re supposed to believe that this was deployed to Reach going completely unnoticed for almost a month…
These timeline changes were dumb and added absolutely nothing to what was supposed to be one of the definitive battles of the Human-Covenant war.
And also the Cortana stuff?? Like, they couldn’t have a game with no references to the previous ones so they unnecessarily had a team of Spartan IIIs take Cortana to the Pillar of Autumn which is so wrong it’s painful. And then they tried to justify it later with “Cortana stayed with Halsey in the excavation site and had to be taken back to the Pillar of Autumn” like what the fuck? No. She was IN THE SHIP. Piloting it. For their top secret mission.
