[ SECRET POST #4701 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4701 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 22 secrets from Secret Submission Post #673.
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

[fscom]

05. https://i.imgur.com/p6GeeJo.jpg

[philstar22]

I agree. But then again, I think there is a lot less that qualifies as objective than a lot of people seem to want to insist. I think when it comes to media and fiction, most of it is opinion and subjective.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree.

[(Anonymous)]

I sort of agree, sort of don't agree.

I think that "complexity", specifically, actually is an objective concept. But I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with what OP is talking about - complexity doesn't inherently make a character good or interesting, and it definitely doesn't have anything to do with how much a person likes watching a character. Those are all totally subjective things.

[(Anonymous)]

What makes a character objectively complex?

[feotakahari]

I think Pearl from Steven Universe is unusually complex. She has one "mode" she functions in, for lack of a better word, where she's a dutiful caretaker, and another where she's a fearsome rebel warrior, and another based around her knowledge of complex hardware and software, and another where she's a socially awkward dweeb. But what makes her a well-written character is that these all flow into each other and make sense as part of her personality and history. Sometimes a character switches too far and too suddenly between extremes, such that they wind up feeling like two flat characters who've been crammed into the same body.

[(Anonymous)]

I think a character is more or less complex if they have more conceptual things going on

I think that's generally the way that complexity works

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry but wtf kind of answer is this.

[(Anonymous)]

What's your question

[philstar22]

Okay, yes, I can agree with you. I can enjoy and think a character is good even if they aren't complex. Complex is nice, but it isn't everything. It is just one factor.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I pretty much agree with this. I don't think "complexity" is an entirely objective concept, but I do think there is a significant degree of objectivity to it. However, I don't think what makes a character "fascinating" is remotely objective.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think there's anything objective about it. We like what we like.

To me, complex means they have a range of sympathetic qualities and flaws. They don't fit neatly in a good guy/bad guy dichotomy. But that's just my definition and preference, and of course we all have a different idea about what makes a character complex.

[ninefox]

I pretty much agree with you about what makes for complexity, although that's exactly why I think it's more objective. It's not that hard to enumerate traits and classify them as flaws/strengths/other. Even if edge cases are hard to call, the specific criterion of "many, some of each" smoothes out some of the noise.

And I think what gets called "fascinating" or "compelling" is generally 1) those flaws and sympathetic qualities being in tension with one another, instead of just..there 2) those flaws and sympathetic qualities being connected/reflections/exaggerations of each other and 3) a particular suite of flaws and sympathies being one I haven't seen a million times already.

[(Anonymous)]

Oooh yes to 1 & 2. Well-said.

If 1 & 2 are done well enough, I don't care about 3.

[ninefox]

to be fair, there are some 1&2 characters that I will ALWAYS love even the million-and-first time, but there's definitely others that are objectively well-crafted but that I'm just heckin sick of. (Tortured masculinity types, mostly.) And there's people for whom version 1,000,001 is the first time THEY'VE seen it, and it blows their socks off.

#3 is definitely a YMMV thing, but I do think it's relevant to like, What Catches On overall and gets a lot of attention and praise AS "fascinating." people like their old standards, but people also really like novelty. Things that feel fresh are going to get more like, meta posts and analysis because not all the threads have been untangled yet, and that sort of thing.

[silverr]

I think you've put this very well, and I agree with all of it!

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, very much seconding everything you've said ITT.

[greghousesgf]

isn't the important thing about what makes a good character if they're interesting to you?

Hmm.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, "fascinating" is not an objective measure. "Complex" is objective, which means a character can be more complex or less. But how much complexity someone enjoys in their characters, that is a subjective matter and can be a range. There are definitely sociological circumstances that influence our preferences, alongside the psychological and personal, and exploring that can be interesting and eye-opening, but if you don't want to, it is also okay to just like what you like.

[meadowphoenix]

fascinating is by definition subjective

complexity however has a literary definition, and so therefore an objective element.
i think a short-cut to whether a character is complex is "from their first scene can you imagine how they will react to failure or success almost immediately?" if yes then complexity will need to be added in successive scenes. If successive scenes don't complicate that certainty of how you believe they act? then they aren't complex.

liking a character isn't connected to complexity at all, but it's far easier to enjoy unlikable characters when the way they react to their life surprises you.

For instance Leverage: Sterling isn't at all a complex character. You know who he is from the jump: creative, morally bankrupt, a blindspot as to true selflessness which allows him to underestimate the crew. he never changes, but he's enjoyable as all hell.

For instance Supernatural: Dean Winchester, insanely complex with multiple competing motivations. i dislike his decisions and a great deal of his character immensely but he's sooooooo enjoyable.

For instance HIMYM: Barney is really quite complex despite his primary trait being misogyny, but he's so fucking unenjoyable with how terrible he's misogyny is. His complexity does not make up for this.

For instance GOT: Littlefinger. Not complex and frankly unenjoyable.