fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2596 ]

[ SECRET POST #2596 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2596 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Star Trek: The Next Generation]

__________________________________________________

03.

[The Croods]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Elementary]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Final Fantasy XIII]

__________________________________________________

06.

[SCP Foundation]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Philip Seymour Hoffman]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Twin Peaks]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Richard Armitage]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Reign]

__________________________________________________

11.

[The Hobbit]

__________________________________________________

12.

[Hunger Games]

__________________________________________________

13.

[Don't Hug Me I'm Scared]

__________________________________________________

14.

[Teen Wolf]

__________________________________________________

15.

[Panic! at The Disco/Dallon Weekes]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 063 secrets from Secret Submission Post #371.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

There were a few comments to secret #1 that described Oswin as "Manic Pixie Girl." It was the linchpin in my burgeoning realization that a) I hate that fandom category and b) I hate the fact that characters who fall into that category are met with disdain.

I relate to women like that. I am best friends with women like that. I tend to like and gravitate toward women who are like that. They're weird, and smart, and fun, and I don't see why any of those traits is so terrible, or why it's terrible for them all to happen to coincide. I don't see why it's some big issue that some people are writing women as weird, smart, and fun.

And I know what the response will be. I know that it's, "well, it's okay for that to happen every once in a while, but it's a TROPE now." And I'm like...every fucking thing is a goddamn trope. Every male character is a trope, for fuck's sake. There are discrete personality types and people identify them and use them as templates.

These sorts of characters speak to me, and they probably speak to a lot of other women, as well. The fact that they don't represent your experience doesn't mean that they suck and are sexist.

I... don't think you actually do relate to women like that or like women like that. The thing about the Manic Pixie Dream Girl is that she's a character type that doesn't actually exist in life. She's the personification of everything a hopeless, boring nerdy guy dreams of and amounts to a (usually temporary) escape from the pressures of his everyday life. She's a specific type of male fantasy, not a real person.

That's why people don't like the character type. Unless you personally know a whole lot of utterly flawless women and hang out with them all the time, I think you may have fundamentally misunderstood the concept here.

ayrt

I get what you're saying, but I think my issue may be that when I've seen the phrase applied, it's to a character that I like and relate to. It's to a character that I don't see as flawless or as a fantasy; I see her as real because I've met people like her.

If I had exposure to the genesis of the archetype, I might have a different view.

Well you can feel free to ignore the people that go around screaming "Manic Pixie Dream Girl!" at every female character they happen not to like; they're the same people who go around calling characters Mary Sues for similar reasons. I was just trying to clarify where the more general dislike comes from, not belittle your taste in characters.

I know you were, and I'm sorry if I came across as too aggressive.

At least in its original sense, Manic Pixie Dream Girl didn't just mean "someone who is weird, smart, and fun." I think the "Dream" part of the appellation is important, because the term as originally used applied to characters who were male fantasies. It was talking about a role certain kinds of female characters played as much as the attributes they had: characters who were spontaneous and quirky and intelligent, but who only existed for the purpose of teaching Sensitive Nerd Guys lessons about life and how it's worth living. They come into the lives of the narrator-protagonist in some indie movie and they only exist insofar as they interact with that character's life. And that's why they suck and are sexist - because they're a fantasy about some awesome woman who exists in a work to serve some specific purpose in the life of a male character. It's not a term that should just be applied to any female character who's quirky and smart, and if people are using it that way, it's fucking bullshit and you're right to be angry.

ayrt

And I can completely understand and get behind all of what you've described. The problem is that I haven't actually seen that. I've just seen certain characters get saddled with the label without it making any sense to me.

Perhaps it's a function of your last sentence, in the sense that there are some who apply it to any quirky, smart female character. They are doing so because they have been exposed to the negative archetype, but they're painting with too broad a brush.

This. And not only that, but their quirkiness is always seen as something cute and endearing and never as something that causes them any issues despite the fact that sometimes they can be rather out there in terms of personality.

The whole basis of the trope is just as you said: the "Dream" part, the fact that they're supposed to be some sort of fantasy rather than an actual person.

ayrt

That's actually a little strange to me. Why should a narrative have to show that a quirky person faces problems for being quirky?

Here are the problems that I've seen people face for being quirky in the way that these types of characters are:
1). some people don't want to hang out with them;
2). some family members think they're strange.

That's it. That's seriously it.

Those are still problems and things that make the person less than perfect. The issue with the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope is that the characters are presented as being an ideal, without any discernible flaws. In real life, quirkiness can be a negative trait at times, and something that people can find off-putting. Manic Pixie Dream Girls, however, are always seen as endearing even when they do something that would normally make people raise eyebrows. The worst reaction they typically get is an affectionate "oh, that _____."

They are never presented in any sort of negative light because they are meant to be the depiction of a fantasy.

How would demonstrating that Character B is sometimes seen as weird by other people serve the narrative?

I know I'm being pedantic. I'm thinking about why that is, and I think it's because, well...I hang out with weirdos (some of whom have weird families. I've got two friends who help their parents with Ren Faire-associated businesses). I am kind of a weirdo, and I just reign it in when I need to. When I think about writing the sort of character that might get labeled a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, it doesn't occur to me to show them being seen as weird by a certain set, because it's neither interesting to me nor integral to the story (generally speaking).

The more I think about it, the more I think that my world and my experiences are just so contrary to what people are drawing upon when they criticize this type that I can't completely grasp it. This is despite my being able to grasp the concept of a character being two-dimensional or too perfect. I may just have a blindspot when it comes to a certain set of traits. :(

As I see, the big problem with Manic Pixie Dream girls is not their personality :3 (I also relate a lot with those traits). It's the fact that they're explicitly created not as characters themselves, but as a tool for the male protagonist to "learn about the joy of living", "grow" and/or have something to angst about.

ayrt

I'm of two minds about this.

On the one hand, I would like female characters to have their own motivations and arcs.

On the other hand, from a storytelling perspective, I feel that certain characters exist only to further the plot.

I don't feel that there is anything wrong with the latter bit. I think the solution is not to say "female characters should never fall into this role;" it's to say "male characters should fall into this role with the same frequency that female characters do."

The thing is, the authors that use MPDG as a trope tend to be male, and you cannot take the weight of "why the MPDG was created as a trope" from the character. The origin is a sexist one, and the trope rings hollow when the character is (un)developed in such a way it loses all plausibility.

It's a male fantasy made to further the plot of a male narrative.

Minor characters exist /only/ to further the plot. Major characters should exist in such a way they are characters and not plot-devices, even if they are indeed created to help further the plot.

There are many, many ways to subvert this that don't mean "we should make male characters into Manic Pixie Dream Boys" (a la John Green). Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind is a good example: The girl starts as a MPDG to the protagonist, but it's obvious she has depth and complex emotions that go way beyond her smart quirkyness.

What differentiates a minor from a major character? Is it a function of the character's importance to the protagonist? Is it screen/page time? I think there are times when the protagonist is the only major character, and I think in such cases, it's okay for every other character to serve the plot rather than themselves.

On the other hand, there are times when I feel that a character who appears to be minor serves a greater purpose than simply the advancement of the plot. It depends on the story and the quality of the writing.

I understand what you're saying and I understand why the trope can be problematic. I think my issue with the direction in which you have taken it is that I don't see it as necessarily wrong to make every character (even characters that might be considered "major") serve the narrative of the single, central character, depending on the story. Again, the problem to me comes down to the fact that the central character is too often male and so too often operating from a male perspective.

Yeah, I'm bothered by the backlash to that character type, too.

There are a lot of usually-flat characters out there. Valiant heroes of pure pureness! Gritty anti-heros! Princesses! Hell, the unassuming dudes that fall for MPDGs qualify, too. But the complaints about those types are more along the lines of "write it better and give them unique traits beyond the obvious!" When people complain about MPDGs, there's this weird sense that they want them wiped off the map completely. It's weird!

And you know, I even think there's a correct way to write the relationships that MPDGs often become part of. Hell, I've seen it done! (...Carl and Ellie from UP!)

ayrt

Ya know, I think that might be the crux of my problem. There are a lot of "types," and they cut across genders, but it's this one particular type that seems to get singled out (of late, anyway. It certainly hasn't always been, nor will it always be). There's a reason these types exist, and it's not necessarily bad or wrong, and people can actually relate to some of those types (if they couldn't, then they wouldn't pop up so often and be so compelling).

As people have said - the 'type' that a lot of people are criticizing isn't necesssarily the same as the 'type' that you're defending

You're failing to grasp what Manic Pixie Dream Girl means. It's not that people hate quirky, smart women. It's that this character type doesn't have a fleshed out personality beyond what's required to inspire/motivate the protagonist-- usually a guy. She has no agency on her own, she's just there to serve a man's fantasy. That's what makes this trope sexist.

And like someone already pointed out, by definition the Manic Pixie Dream Girl does not exist. (The underlined portion is a big clue.) Your friends are not her, because they're real. They're not cardboard characters to prop up a dude's loneliness and lack of ambition.

So I hope this helps?

ayrt

Well, what I'm starting to get is that why I've seen characterized as Manic Pixie Dream Girl doesn't, as far as I'm concerned, constitute Manic Pixie Dream Girl. I'm seeing characters that seem and feel very real to me dismissed as Manic Pixie Dream Girls, and that's what's annoying me.

People have gotten carried away with the term and are using it far too loosely. They are applying it to any female characters who are quirky, even the ones who aren't love interests or don't exist to help the male protagonist and might be far better classified as "wacky best friend" or "free-spirited heroine."

It's like people complaining about "Mary Sue" being applied to "Any female character I don't like" instead of it's original, narrower definition of "Blatant self-insert who is overly perfect (or has only endearing flaws like 'clumsiness.')" It makes the subject hard to talk about when people are coming in with different ideas of what the term means and some think it's awful and possibly sexist and some see it as a perfectly valid concept and functional term and neither side understands where the other is coming from.

Question: Is the Doctor a MPDG?

I've been thinking about this for a while. Showing up out of nowhere, acting zany, and trying to make people better is his schtick. Hell, "the man who makes people better" is the canonical explanation for his choice of name. The only difference is that he's the main character and the one we continuously follow and the people he helps are the supporting players.

He clearly has depth and significance and an emotional life of his own. He has a hinterland, so to speak. He has problems of his own and he attempts to solve those problems. I think there are times when the portrayal of the character borders on that, but it's not really who he is.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2596 ]

Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl

ayrt

Re: ayrt

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl