fandomsecrets | [ 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

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.

[ SECRET POST #2596 ]

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl

Re: Secret #1: Manic Pixie Girl