[ SECRET POST #3292 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3292 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________

































06. [SPOILERS for Hunger Games]





__________________________________________________



07. [SPOILERS for The Force Awakens]





__________________________________________________



08. [SPOILERS for The Force Awakens]





__________________________________________________



09. [WARNING for eating disorders]





__________________________________________________



10. [WARNING for rape]





__________________________________________________



11. [WARNING for rape]







































Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #470.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[philstar22]

True. I just find it weird in my fandom because I've seen so little woobification of the character in question. Like maybe one or two examples, but most people acknowledge he's an evil, horrible person. But some people insist that if you talk about positive traits at all it is woobification.

OP here

[(Anonymous)]

My issue is more the flattening of more complicated villains' characterization both on the woobiefication side and the "this character is problematic and irredeemably evil, and does bad things for no character-based reason" side.

I do agree that it's a balance between giving a character understandable motivations/sympathetic qualities without justifying his/her actions as a villain.

Re: OP here

[philstar22]

I agree with this. I love complex characters. If you take away the layers, you take away what makes characters interesting. I like villains, and even the most evil of them generally have layers. I mean, I enjoy reading about the two ones in my fandom who are basically devil figures, but they are still complicated and it is okay to portray that.

Re: OP here

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, I enjoy reading about the two ones in my fandom who are basically devil figures, but they are still complicated and it is okay to portray that.

This. I think there's a difference between being an apologist and trying to understand and write the POV and motivations of a villain without justifying his/her actions.

I also think that if a character reforms it should be handled realistically - with the narrative and other characters holding the reformed character accountable. Fandom doesn't have a good record of this, agreed, but it can also be very powerful if done right.

Re: OP here

[(Anonymous)]

What do you have in mind by "character-based reason"?

Because, I mean, I would say there are tons of character-based reasons for doing bad things that are still pretty fucking bad. And I think sometimes when people focus on "character-based reasons", you again have the problem of using it to justify or minimize.

Re: OP here

[(Anonymous)]

By character-based, I mean in line with the character's established motivations, personality, goals and/or backstory.

They can still be horrible reasons, but they're in-character. For an example of the opposite, let's say that there's a villain with an extremely specific grudge against a specific individual or group. A fic writes the character as attacking someone with no connection to the target for no reason and with nothing to gain from it.

The character's a villain, but this action is still out of character.

Re: OP here

[(Anonymous)]

Ah! So your point is that people should limit their judgments to things that are actually in-character? That's fair enough.