The Brooklyn Project: Protagonist-Centered Morality and Why it’s Bad

Tags

accountability, baroness orczy, bbc merlin, bbc sherlock, captain america, captain america: the first avenger, captain america: the winter soldier, character development, characters, dynamic characters, editing, harry potter, heroes, marvel, marvel superheroes, star wars, story dynamics, the brooklyn project, the scarlet pimpernel, undo the sue, writing

Sometimes, an author will become so preoccupied with his or her hero or heroine that they can do no wrong–even when they are. The rules bend for these protagonists. And people in the stories (and occasionally the reader as well) see nothing wrong with this.

This can potentially lead to the creation of a Mary Sue.

Protagonist-centered morality is bad because it takes away the possibility of accountability as well. If your hero does something wrong, you want it to have repercussions. They can’t just get away with a slap on the hand! It reinforces to the reader that the hero has done something wrong, and it also makes for deeper characters. If the hero has slipped up once, they have to fight harder to even be allowed to do it right the next time..

On the other hand, if you don’t add responsibility, your protagonist can become spoiled and obnoxious (as in real life) or unrealistically angelic (sickening.) The latter would make him/her a Mary Sue, no matter how many de-Sue-ifiers you threw in to try and balance it (without removing the lack of accountability.)

Apart from the message that it sends, that it’s okay to do bad things, it’s bad for the story at large.

I’m trying to think of a few examples, but all I can think of is that, though in the final cut, we never see the response to Steve’s failed attempts to enlist, falsifying information, I think there was actually a scene planned where someone found out and didn’t trust Steve for a while. They just didn’t officially tell anyone because if they did he’d be court-martialed and they couldn’t have that. In the planned Howling Commandos fanfic that I’m writing, I was going to have one of the people in the USO show tour find out and hold it over Steve. There are, however, strong consequences when Steve fails to predict that the train is a trap and save Bucky, even if it’s not technically his fault.

Another example would be the BBC show Merlin. While, all around, this is generally a good show, the BBC slipped up a bit (for once); this show displays a bit of protagonist-centered morality. Though, later on, they add more consequences, even to past actions, early in the show there are a few episodes where Merlin slips up and gets away with it. However, for the show’s other protagonist, Arthur, there are always consequences to his actions. Inconsistent much? Or just waiting around? *sigh* I wish they’d done it earlier on.

In the BBC show Sherlock, we’re actually hoping to see protagonist-centered morality blown out of the water; at the very end of the last season, Sherlock killed someone, point-blank, in cold blood (attempting not to give spoilers here); we want to see how people react to this. There’s always mistrust, and rightly so, after something like that.

In Star Wars, Obi-Wan’s attempt to distance himself, to not become emotionally involved, backfires when Anakin turns to the dark side; Obi-Wan’s aloof affection was simultaneously too much and not enough.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier comes with a thorough message about accountability (where Civil War is essentially about people’s Constitutional rights, from what I’ve heard). This is especially true for Natasha, who risks, in a selfless action that proves she is capable, no matter what she (and incidentally, Hydra) thinks, of heroism, she spills all her dirty secrets across the Internet in order to bring Hydra down (again, trying to avoid spoilers.) Ironically, this bypasses the same failsafe that Hydra thought would protect them; they insist that Natasha (or anyone, really) wouldn’t incriminate herself like that.

From what I’ve heard, Harry Potter is really bad about this–it sounds like he consistently breaks rules of both the magician and human world without any consequences.

One very good book that could make better use of accountability (without outright protagonist-centered morality) that I love is “The Scarlet Pimpernel.” Except for Marguerite, the book doesn’t use it quite as well as it could…

Accountability. Use it for deeper character.

Thanks for reading, and God Bless!

Advertisement

Making Humor Work

Tags

brian jacques, c.s. lewis, captain america: the first avenger, creative writing, cressida cowell, editing, harping on an eyesore syndrome, how to train your dragon, humor, john flanagan, kung fu panda, looney tunes: back in action, marvel, marvel superheroes, nanowrimo, nanowrimo 2014, national novel writing month, oocs, out of character syndrome, perelandra, ranger's apprentice, redwall, spontaneous expedient character defamation syndrome, star wars, story dynamics, the avengers, the chronicles of narnia, the lego movie, the space trilogy, who framed roger rabbit, writing

I know, I know, it’s been forever. :-S Sorry about the long hiatus. I really have no excuse.

On to the post…

---

I don’t like some animated movies.

Yeah, I know. BIG surprise. But seriously, I don’t. Why?

Because the humor doesn’t work. Well, at least not for me. (My dad tends to laugh in these movies, so maybe it’s really a subjective thing…? Anyway, I don’t find them awfully funny.) Who Framed Roger Rabbit is probably the best example of this. The humor doesn’t work. (And who among us wasn’t completely mentally scarred by that stupid movie in early childhood, anyway?!) It’s a mixture of slapstick, poking fun at the characters, and innuendo. Even without the innuendo, to me it would be offensive. I much prefer the wry humor Halt uses in the Ranger’s Apprentice books. And the fun word-play and occasional mild slapstick that appears in the Redwall books.

When a movie does that, I like to call it Harping On An Eyesore Syndrome.

Some movies are, to me, a mix of playful and painful. Normally the ones that are the least painful also have the most heart, probably because they’re the ones that the filmmakers either 1) actually love or 2) know what they’re doing with.

In Kung Fu Panda, I found myself actually laughing at some of the gags, though some of them still got a blank stare from me. Brave and Tangled, the same, though I think Tangled really takes itself a bit too seriously. (Come on, Disney! You can’t have it both ways. Either keep your trademark irreverent humor, or make a “serious movie”.) Cars… do not even get me started on this movie.

The Lego Movie? I thought it would be totally stupid, but win.

How To Train Your Dragon? Absolute win.

Loony Tunes: Back in Action? Okay movie. Not my favorite. It was a blatant rip-off of spy movies and Indiana Jones, but unlike The Lego Movie, it didn’t click. I think it was trying to do too much.

Prince of Egypt? Okay, some of the humor slipped up, but mostly it was good.

So, why does some humor work but other humor doesn’t?

I think that there are a number of factors.

First of all, does the movie have “heart”? What do I mean by this? Well, in my opinion, I think this means are the characters really relatable? They can’t be just punching bags (unlike Jar Jar Binks… seriously, guys, the reason you and/or other people hate on him? It’s because he has no character development. He’s a talking, walking cardboard-or-rubber-or-both stand-up. And yes, that was pun intended.)

This leads well into my first point. The humor must be acknowledged by the characters. They must reply realistically to it, whether it’s in hurt, gamely taking the hit, or pretending not to respond while inwardly being cut deeply by the jab, even if it wasn’t intended to be insulting.

Secondly, if the humor helps to acknowledge a point of the plot, so much the better. It helps it mesh better with the rest of the story, and doesn’t poke out like an eyesore.

Some of the humor in movies like Kung Fu Panda and Captain America: The First Avenger is like this. It acknowledges the pure sucking-ness of the main character before they become awesome. However, it should never be overdone, because then instead of being humorous, the result is laughable. They make too light of a matter that’s all too serious for the main character and lose the audience while they’re at it. (The First Avenger did a marvelous job using this type of humor; it made us want to both laugh and cry at the same time. Perfection.)

Thirdly, humor can be a character’s lifeline. Rather than going stark raving insane… um, was that an unintentional Avengers pun? Never mind. Anyway. Rather than losing it, entirely and permanently, they can deal with it by making a joke. Some of these jokes are sad, but some can be pretty darn witty. (The First Avenger again. Also How To Train Your Dragon–though that’s more sarcasm than actual humor–and Kung Fu Panda, which also made me want to cry in parts.)

Finally, sometimes the characters will just make a joke unintentionally, or crack one on the aside, to keep a plot moving, so the audience doesn’t get bored. (The First Avenger. Par excellence.) My absolute favorite line in Perelandra is when Dr. Ransom slips up:

In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, here goes–I mean, Amen!

So, bottom line?

---

1. Humor can help keep characters sane.

2. Humor meshes well if it’s used to acknowledge something (as in lampshading a plot oversight and making it into a joke) in most cases, but don’t overdo it. (Cars. ‘Nough said.)

3. Do not poke fun at your main characters for no reason, or you may end up sacrificing character development and making your entire book into a bad joke.

4. Absolutely no spontaneous expedient character defamation or out of character syndrome. Because that is not funny. Most of the time, not even in what is referred to as “crackfic.”

5. Some characters are just pretty darn funny (like Halt, Major Montgomery, Bucky, Cap, Arven, Gobber, Gonff, Edmund Pevensie, Dr. Elwin Ransom, and Sir Percy Blakeney) without even trying.

So, that’s my post on humor and how to and how not to use it. Good luck, Nanoers. 😉

Thanks for reading, God bless, and have a great day. 😀

Reasons Why I Loved “Captain America: The First Avenger”

Tags

authors, brian jacques, c.s. lewis, captain america, captain america: the first avenger, characters, confusing nonsense, cressida cowell, editor, how to train your dragon, marvel superheroes, movie reviews, movies, nazi germany, rambling musings, redwall, science, science fiction, small rants, star wars, story dynamics, theoretic science, world war II, writer, writing

Hello, dear readers, and sorry about the absence. I really shouldn’t have an excuse and if I do have one, it’s 1) college, 2) rough transfers, and 3) poor time management. So, really my fault this time, and I hope you enjoy the post.

Now, on to the point! I’ve probably told everyone about how I saw Captain America: The First Avenger on Sunday and absolutely loved it. I’ll probably review it once I have the chance to see it twice (I make it a rule not to review anything until the second watching, for obvious reasons; not that the second watch often changes my initial opinion), but for now I’m making a list of reasons why I loved it and why you should go see it if you haven’t yet. 😉 So, without further ado (and in no particular order):

1. Because underdogs. Everyone cheers for an underdog in a story, though it’s sometimes different in real life (because people in real life want to be on the winning side. Why else would Italy change sides halfway through WWII?) But more than just having an underdog-becomes-awesome story, The First Avenger also gives us a few reasons why it’s an underdog story. Because, as the nice scientist whose name I can’t remember states, a weak man appreciates what strength can do and, if his heart is in the right place, he won’t misuse it.
2. It has a good portrayal of hero vs. villain. Rather than having all Germans be the bad guys, it is a German scientist who didn’t agree with Hitler (they don’t mention anything about him being Jewish, which in my opinion adds to the character dynamic) and fled the country who first sees something in the young Steven Rogers. Also, to be historically accurate, there were cowardly followers and Nazis who were the spawn of darkness (because. They were.) If this movie lacked anything, it was the nice Goring brother. 😛 (Yes, Herman Goring had a brother who could not agree less with his philosophy! Look it up! 😉 )
3. Patriotism. And what’s more, a balanced portrayal of patriotism vs. nationalism. The Nazis were not patriotic. They were nationalistic. And the guys who repeatedly talk about killing Nazis? They’re nationalistic, too. Also ethnocentrist, but that’s occasionally justified. Steve just wants to get out there and fight for his country. And he’s not just fighting for his country, but he’s fighting for an ideal, which is basically what patriotism is and why patriotism is a Christian virtue. There have always been Americans who were also America-haters out there, but Steve puts these guys to shame. He’s not just fighting for his country. He’s fighting so that Nazi Germany can’t enslave more places (which is also technically ethnocentric, but this is one of ethnocentrism’s proper places, since the Nazi “ideal” was wholly evil.) He’s fighting for those back home. He’s fighting for those who can’t fight, too–especially since, at first, he was one of those.
4. This brings me to reason #4. Here we have a guy in the public spotlight after becoming a folk hero, being used as an advertising gimmick. Basically, he has attention, but he doesn’t want it. We know that he really hates this and only goes along with it because it’s for the war effort. He really wants to be over there with the soldiers who are fighting and dying. He’s a symbol, and he never particularly wanted to be one. He’s also bad at keeping up the troops’ morale (when he’s not on the field). Yet, when he gets the chance to fight, he’s not disobeying the people higher up until his friend’s life is at stake.
5. This movie is pretty darn funny! It’s great to watch, has humor, and can make you cry in places. It’s pretty well-balanced, in my opinion.
6. The protagonist feels pretty helpless around girls. 😛 I think it’s charming, and pretty funny, but it does lead to some awkward moments. Basically what I’m trying to say here is he’s not a flirt, which in my opinion is the bane of the new Spiderman movies.
7. Steve is really against violence. This is made, in my opinion, pretty clear when he makes the distinction between fighting for his country and killing Nazis. Not only is he against violence, but he also understands that sometimes–sometimes–violence is the only way to protect yourself, your friends, and your country. Also, in this occasion, he’s protecting others around the world from being overrun by Nazi Germany. (I believe C.S. Lewis made the point why he wasn’t a pacifist, and that’s what I’m talking about here.)
8. Last, but certainly not least, he has a shield. No, I’m not going to rave about superhero weaponry… okay. Maybe a little bit. Because you’ve got to admit, that buckler of his is pretty darn cool. It operates on a similar principle to a bulletproof vest, for goodness’ sake! Anyway, though a shield can be used as a weapon (thank you, Roughnut and Toughnut, for that marvelous exhibition), it’s primarily a defensive one. You use it to keep arrows, pikes, lances, and swords (and in this case, bullets and knives) from hitting you. Though it can be thrown like a discus, the edges aren’t sharp like the edges of Racketty Tam MacBurl’s buckler, so it’s mainly used to stun rather than to kill. Like Obi-Wan Kenobi choosing to use Soresu rather than Ataru later in life, Captain America’s fighting style and weaponry are the ultimate statement of his life philosophy. Be ready to defend yourself when necessary; do not attack when not provoked. As Obi-Wan puts it, “There are alternatives to fighting.”

(More about the shield. Apparently, rather than hardening up to absorb impacts, thus spreading the impact around a larger area, like a bulletproof vest or liquid armor do, vibranium actually absorbs the kinetic energy of anything coming at it, keeping shock waves running through the shield virtually nil. For instance, if the shield were somehow merely hard enough to stop bullets and other objects at high velocity from penetrating it, the vibrations throughout the shield would be enough to actually break the bones in Cap’s arm and hand. However, since vibranium actually absorbs those shock waves, this is not a problem at all. This is one incidence in which I will not question Marvel pseudo-science, because though this has not theoretically been proven possible yet, it pushes the boundaries and is innovative, like good science fiction should be. I will, however, question the portrayal–if vibranium really absorbs all the kinetic energy, then why do things make noise when they hit it? And why does Steve sometimes stagger backward upon an impact? I know this is to make it look realistic in the film, but it does call the physics into question a little bit, doesn’t it?!)

The one thing that I did not particularly care for was the wording that the scientist uses to describe what happens to the personalities of those who receive the serum he created. Though I suppose we could attribute it to English being (probably) his second language. 😛 I don’t think the serum actually changes someone’s personality, per se. It merely underscores, magnifies, or works on what is already there. It gives a good man the opportunity to do great things, and gives a bad man the power to do worse evil. I don’t think it changes people’s personalities. In my experience, most of the time it’s only time and circumstances to do that, and with the serum, time is a factor that doesn’t really play in, since the transformation is relatively quick.

So there you have it, a quick critique and a short post on theoretic science all in one. ;-P

That much said, go watch the movie! 😛