![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aikateriniThis kind of goes hand-in-hand with the previous Tiresome Trope that I ranted about (Tearing Down the Old to Make Way for the New). In this post, though, I'm going to talk about a possible reason for the character derailment that often occurs in that trope: the writers don't know where to go after the end of a character arc.
Typically, in a traditionally structured story, the character arc follows the 3-Act structure of the plot. During the first act, the character is stuck in their false identity, filled with flaws that the character arc will be designed to help them overcome. Act Two is when the character takes one step forward and two steps back when it comes to recognizing, addressing, and overcoming their fatal flaws. And Act Three is when the character fully passes the gate of their character development where their fatal flaw is conquered and their true self is realized, usually in tandem with whatever obstacle posed the main conflict to the plot.
In the case of a series, especially a three-part series, each book or film is a macrocosm of the overall plot. The Original Star Wars Trilogy is a great example of this. The first film, "A New Hope", roughly corresponds to the overall first act, "Empire Strikes Back" maps to the second act, and "Return of the Jedi" wraps up the trilogy much like Act Three does. Yes, "A New Hope" could've stood on its own (and without the enormous financial success that it had, there's a very good chance that it would have remained a stand-alone film), but in terms of the overall trilogy, it's easy to see where it falls in terms of the protagonist's character arc.
So, why am I mentioning all this? It's because in the cases that I mentioned for "Tearing Down the Old to Make Way for the New", the writers seem to run into a problem that I think that a lot of sequel writers fall into. Which is: what do we do with the characters after they've already completed their character arcs? Their main inner conflict is gone, so now where do they go from here?
Film Brain and Bennet the Sage suggested in their video review of "Batman Returns" that the reason why Bruce Wayne seems to have a lot less screentime in that film than he did in "Batman" was because the writers didn't know what to do with him. By the end of "Batman," he'd found out who his parents' killer was and had dealt with him. His personal motive for being Batman was gone. Of course, that's not to say that vengeance should have been the only reason; in fact, many fans have argued that Batman's true motive for crimefighting is altruism in general, making sure that nobody else has to suffer what he did. But since the Tim Burton films had built up that personal conflict and completed it in the span of one film, that decision resulted in Batman becoming less interesting to the writers of "Batman Returns."
But of course the biggest example which comes directly from "Tearing Down the Old to Make Way for the New" is Star Wars. As I said earlier, the Original Trilogy had a beginning, a middle, and an end. All three films charted the character growth of its protagonist, Luke Skywalker. By the end of "Return of the Jedi", we the audience had seen Luke Skywalker grow from a good-natured but rash youth to a calm and mature Jedi. We had seen him struggle with darkness and his father's legacy, only to overcome them and stand on his own. His character arc was complete, and with it, so was his story.
Now, again, let me reiterate that I have not read any of the Expanded Universe books. So, I have no idea what the EU writers did with that completed character arc, whether they decided to expand on it, ignore it, or leave it alone.
But I do know what the ST writers did with it. And I wonder if they did so because they didn't know how else Luke's character would fit into the new story of the ST. Because what is the main conflict between Rey and Kylo? Both of them feel desperately lonely and both of them have abandonment issues resulting from the families who disappointed and betrayed them. Both of them are drawn to each other because of their shared empathy. And here's Luke Skywalker who learned to transcend those issues during his character development. He overcame his devotion to a idolized familial figure that proved to be false and learned to become his own person while never losing his compassion for others. He learned to resist the Dark Side while never losing hope in a loved one who was trapped by it.
In short, Luke followed a very similar journey to Rey. And if the plot of "The Last Jedi" had been revealed to the audience beforehand, if it had been made clear from the start that the story was going to be about a Jedi trying to redeem a Dark Jedi, which character do you think this would've reminded audiences of? Who would they think is the one character in the "Star Wars" series who could understand what Rey was going through? Who would be the likeliest person to empathize with her, to tell her, "Yes, I've been there too" and share his own experience?
Because, frankly, anybody who doesn't say "Luke Skywalker" is being disingenuous. If anybody was in a position to support Rey, it would be Luke. Especially since the Dark Jedi in question is his own nephew.
But because Rey and Kylo needed to be isolated, because the writers wanted an immediate trigger for Kylo's turn that wasn't Snoke, because they wanted more *conflict*, they instead turned Luke into another obstacle. Instead of building on his character arc or leaving it as it was, Luke regressed. Instead of having faith in his nephew like he did in Vader, Luke feared and doubted him. Instead of sensing the conflict in his nephew, Luke saw darkness. Instead of trying to help Kylo, Luke almost killed him in his sleep.
And the excuse for this is really a key problem with this trope to begin with, which is: "The character's just being realistic. People don't change in a day, they change over time, they have lapses, and make mistakes." And that is another reason for why I talked about the 3-Act structure earlier, because I think that this argument misses the point.
Yes, in real life, it's not uncommon for people to fall off the bandwagon. Character development does not mean that a character becomes perfect. But the main point that the argument misses is that, as per the popular paraphrased quote by Mark Twain, "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense."
Yes, fiction imitates reality, it provides a fascimile of reality. Suspension of belief can only go so far and people often like characters based on how relatable they are. Characters acting in bizarre and inexplicable ways often merit disdain or disbelief (ex. "This man is such a monster, why is this unrealistic idiot smiling and giggling instead of filing a restraining order? No real human being would act that way."). But fiction has to make sense and be purposeful. And the idea of purpose is one of the reasons why character arcs even exist. Yes, there are many stories in which the protagonist undergoes no character growth. Adventure stories, spy thrillers, old-school comics, etc. are all examples of this, where the focus isn't on the main character's interior itself as much as it is on the adventure and world around the main character.
But for the stories where the main character *does* undergo character growth (which tend to be the majority of fiction), the reason why the character's development exists is to point out the *theme* that exists. To provide an answer to the moral question that exists. The protagonist's arc isn't meant to provide an accurate process for how a real-life person could overcome such a flaw. It's to deepen the character, reveal the theme, and thus *deepen the story*.
And by ignoring the character arc, by contradicting the completion of it and showing that the character didn't learn the lessons that the character arc existed to teach them, the purpose of the character arc is rendered null and void. What was the point of Luke learning to forgive his father for turning to the Dark Side and choose compassion over violence if he was going to threaten violence to his nephew for potentially turning to the Dark Side? What was the point of him learning to never lose hope if he was going to lose hope in Ben who, by this point, is nowhere near as bad as Vader was by the time that Luke approached him? If the writers didn't know how to make Luke's character development fit with the story that they wanted to tell, then in my humble opinion, they shouldn't have used Luke at all.
But Luke is not the only Star Wars character who suffers from this, he's just the most noticeable one. Han and Leia also were not served well by this trope. Despite everything that happened to him in the Original Trilogy, despite his entire character arc revolving around learning to take responsibility for others, Han reverts back to smuggling and his fatal flaw that leads to Kylo's downfall is being an irresponsible parent. And despite three films of building up Han and Leia's romance, their relationship and eventual marriage dissolves to estrangement and separation in the ST.
Which leads to another facet of this trope that bothers me: the dissolution of romance. It's often the first thing to go when it comes to sequels and I think for many similar reasons. Because a romance in and of itself is often a conflict. Yes, there are stories where the two romantic leads are already together and in love, and the conflict stems purely from outside forces. But often the romance itself is a vehicle for character growth as the romantic leads challenge each other to become better people.
So, if that romantic conflict is already wrapped up by the end of the film, if both of the characters are mutually and openly in love (solving that conflict) and have achieved character development due to that love, then where does the future conflict go from here? I think that this may be why female characters are so often replaced in sequels, be it the 'Bond Girls' in the James Bond movies or any standard action movie where the hero's love interest from the first movie vanishes in the sequel.
And yet there have been action franchises where that wasn't the case. For example, the "Mummy" film series starring Brendan Fraser did not replace the female lead. The protagonists' romance is shown from beginning to end in the first film, and then by the second film, they're already married with a child. And the main conflict that they face is an exterior one, from the plot and the movie's villain. There are no more major misunderstandings or lovers' spats. That's done. They are a team and they fight together as a team. No dissolution of the romance or omission of the female lead was required.
While I haven't read the Extended Universe books, I have read a bunch of "Pride and Prejudice" retellings (or 'variations' as they're called). They're essentially published fanfiction as well, and many of them either take place after the events of the original book or during the story, essentially serving as an alternate version of how Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet end up together. And the ones that I've liked understand this as well: if the book is a sequel to "Pride and Prejudice," it's usually a slice-of-life narrative showing Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth's married life. If there is conflict, it's usually an external one. There may be minor disagreements between Darcy and Elizabeth, as they are still strong-willed individuals after all. But the major problems that drove them apart in the original book no longer exist. Darcy does not revert to flagrantly insulting Elizabeth's family. Elizabeth does not make sweeping judgments about him or other people. They're happily married and they stay that way. Because the writers understand that that's what P&P fans want to see and they realize that if Darcy and Elizabeth did revert to their old flaws, that would render their overall character development in the original book pointless.
Unfortunately, this is what happened in "Restore Me," the fourth novel in the "Shatter Me" series by Tahereh Mafi. Originally, "Shatter Me" was only supposed to be a three-book series and many fans, including myself, were happy at the ending that we got. It was open-ended in terms of the characters' future. But as far as the characters themselves, it wrapped up their emotional conflicts. Juliette grew from a timid, self-hating mess who feared and hated Aaron to a more confident and self-assured person who fell in love with him. The love triangle was resolved and the villain was vanquished.
But in "Restore Me," that was all stripped away for the new conflict. After everything that Aaron and Juliette went through together in the series, after the slow build of their relationship which resulted in their mutual trust, love, and respect for each other, they're now back at square one. A crazy ex-girlfriend is created and thrown into the mix for no reason, causing Juliette to become paranoid and doubtful of Aaron's feelings for her and she herself becomes as erratic as she was back at the asylum. All of the character growth that she underwent to become a stronger person is now reversed.
A lot of books on writing emphasize conflict as the key to the story. They advise authors to heighten the stakes, to not let the characters relax too much, to find any possible areas for conflict that they can explore. But I think that this advice can be taken too far when writers are so desperate to create conflict that they make their characters out to be people who learn nothing for the sake of having conflict.
Juliette and Aaron ended up happily ever after together in "Ignite Me?" Well, we need conflict for "Restore Me," so let's create trouble in paradise and have her mistrust him all over again.
Rey is conflicted over her parents and is angry with Kylo over Han? Nope, not enough conflict. Let's make Luke act like a total jerk to her so that Kylo is the only person that she can turn to.
Han and Leia's son fell to the Dark Side? Nope, that's not traumatic enough, so let's break up their marriage and completely render their three-movie-long romance pointless. Because it's not like they could go after their son together while still being married, like Rick and Evie did in "The Mummy Returns." It's not like Luke could help his sister and brother-in-law out like Jonathan did with his family. No, let's separate Han and Leia, kill Han off, and make Luke abandon his family to go sulk on an island. And if anybody complains, we'll say that "people change over time" and leave it at that.
So, I think that this trope may be due to two things: 1) needing to create conflict and 2) not knowing how to create conflict that fits with the ending of the character arc in the previous film/series.
Typically, in a traditionally structured story, the character arc follows the 3-Act structure of the plot. During the first act, the character is stuck in their false identity, filled with flaws that the character arc will be designed to help them overcome. Act Two is when the character takes one step forward and two steps back when it comes to recognizing, addressing, and overcoming their fatal flaws. And Act Three is when the character fully passes the gate of their character development where their fatal flaw is conquered and their true self is realized, usually in tandem with whatever obstacle posed the main conflict to the plot.
In the case of a series, especially a three-part series, each book or film is a macrocosm of the overall plot. The Original Star Wars Trilogy is a great example of this. The first film, "A New Hope", roughly corresponds to the overall first act, "Empire Strikes Back" maps to the second act, and "Return of the Jedi" wraps up the trilogy much like Act Three does. Yes, "A New Hope" could've stood on its own (and without the enormous financial success that it had, there's a very good chance that it would have remained a stand-alone film), but in terms of the overall trilogy, it's easy to see where it falls in terms of the protagonist's character arc.
So, why am I mentioning all this? It's because in the cases that I mentioned for "Tearing Down the Old to Make Way for the New", the writers seem to run into a problem that I think that a lot of sequel writers fall into. Which is: what do we do with the characters after they've already completed their character arcs? Their main inner conflict is gone, so now where do they go from here?
Film Brain and Bennet the Sage suggested in their video review of "Batman Returns" that the reason why Bruce Wayne seems to have a lot less screentime in that film than he did in "Batman" was because the writers didn't know what to do with him. By the end of "Batman," he'd found out who his parents' killer was and had dealt with him. His personal motive for being Batman was gone. Of course, that's not to say that vengeance should have been the only reason; in fact, many fans have argued that Batman's true motive for crimefighting is altruism in general, making sure that nobody else has to suffer what he did. But since the Tim Burton films had built up that personal conflict and completed it in the span of one film, that decision resulted in Batman becoming less interesting to the writers of "Batman Returns."
But of course the biggest example which comes directly from "Tearing Down the Old to Make Way for the New" is Star Wars. As I said earlier, the Original Trilogy had a beginning, a middle, and an end. All three films charted the character growth of its protagonist, Luke Skywalker. By the end of "Return of the Jedi", we the audience had seen Luke Skywalker grow from a good-natured but rash youth to a calm and mature Jedi. We had seen him struggle with darkness and his father's legacy, only to overcome them and stand on his own. His character arc was complete, and with it, so was his story.
Now, again, let me reiterate that I have not read any of the Expanded Universe books. So, I have no idea what the EU writers did with that completed character arc, whether they decided to expand on it, ignore it, or leave it alone.
But I do know what the ST writers did with it. And I wonder if they did so because they didn't know how else Luke's character would fit into the new story of the ST. Because what is the main conflict between Rey and Kylo? Both of them feel desperately lonely and both of them have abandonment issues resulting from the families who disappointed and betrayed them. Both of them are drawn to each other because of their shared empathy. And here's Luke Skywalker who learned to transcend those issues during his character development. He overcame his devotion to a idolized familial figure that proved to be false and learned to become his own person while never losing his compassion for others. He learned to resist the Dark Side while never losing hope in a loved one who was trapped by it.
In short, Luke followed a very similar journey to Rey. And if the plot of "The Last Jedi" had been revealed to the audience beforehand, if it had been made clear from the start that the story was going to be about a Jedi trying to redeem a Dark Jedi, which character do you think this would've reminded audiences of? Who would they think is the one character in the "Star Wars" series who could understand what Rey was going through? Who would be the likeliest person to empathize with her, to tell her, "Yes, I've been there too" and share his own experience?
Because, frankly, anybody who doesn't say "Luke Skywalker" is being disingenuous. If anybody was in a position to support Rey, it would be Luke. Especially since the Dark Jedi in question is his own nephew.
But because Rey and Kylo needed to be isolated, because the writers wanted an immediate trigger for Kylo's turn that wasn't Snoke, because they wanted more *conflict*, they instead turned Luke into another obstacle. Instead of building on his character arc or leaving it as it was, Luke regressed. Instead of having faith in his nephew like he did in Vader, Luke feared and doubted him. Instead of sensing the conflict in his nephew, Luke saw darkness. Instead of trying to help Kylo, Luke almost killed him in his sleep.
And the excuse for this is really a key problem with this trope to begin with, which is: "The character's just being realistic. People don't change in a day, they change over time, they have lapses, and make mistakes." And that is another reason for why I talked about the 3-Act structure earlier, because I think that this argument misses the point.
Yes, in real life, it's not uncommon for people to fall off the bandwagon. Character development does not mean that a character becomes perfect. But the main point that the argument misses is that, as per the popular paraphrased quote by Mark Twain, "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense."
Yes, fiction imitates reality, it provides a fascimile of reality. Suspension of belief can only go so far and people often like characters based on how relatable they are. Characters acting in bizarre and inexplicable ways often merit disdain or disbelief (ex. "This man is such a monster, why is this unrealistic idiot smiling and giggling instead of filing a restraining order? No real human being would act that way."). But fiction has to make sense and be purposeful. And the idea of purpose is one of the reasons why character arcs even exist. Yes, there are many stories in which the protagonist undergoes no character growth. Adventure stories, spy thrillers, old-school comics, etc. are all examples of this, where the focus isn't on the main character's interior itself as much as it is on the adventure and world around the main character.
But for the stories where the main character *does* undergo character growth (which tend to be the majority of fiction), the reason why the character's development exists is to point out the *theme* that exists. To provide an answer to the moral question that exists. The protagonist's arc isn't meant to provide an accurate process for how a real-life person could overcome such a flaw. It's to deepen the character, reveal the theme, and thus *deepen the story*.
And by ignoring the character arc, by contradicting the completion of it and showing that the character didn't learn the lessons that the character arc existed to teach them, the purpose of the character arc is rendered null and void. What was the point of Luke learning to forgive his father for turning to the Dark Side and choose compassion over violence if he was going to threaten violence to his nephew for potentially turning to the Dark Side? What was the point of him learning to never lose hope if he was going to lose hope in Ben who, by this point, is nowhere near as bad as Vader was by the time that Luke approached him? If the writers didn't know how to make Luke's character development fit with the story that they wanted to tell, then in my humble opinion, they shouldn't have used Luke at all.
But Luke is not the only Star Wars character who suffers from this, he's just the most noticeable one. Han and Leia also were not served well by this trope. Despite everything that happened to him in the Original Trilogy, despite his entire character arc revolving around learning to take responsibility for others, Han reverts back to smuggling and his fatal flaw that leads to Kylo's downfall is being an irresponsible parent. And despite three films of building up Han and Leia's romance, their relationship and eventual marriage dissolves to estrangement and separation in the ST.
Which leads to another facet of this trope that bothers me: the dissolution of romance. It's often the first thing to go when it comes to sequels and I think for many similar reasons. Because a romance in and of itself is often a conflict. Yes, there are stories where the two romantic leads are already together and in love, and the conflict stems purely from outside forces. But often the romance itself is a vehicle for character growth as the romantic leads challenge each other to become better people.
So, if that romantic conflict is already wrapped up by the end of the film, if both of the characters are mutually and openly in love (solving that conflict) and have achieved character development due to that love, then where does the future conflict go from here? I think that this may be why female characters are so often replaced in sequels, be it the 'Bond Girls' in the James Bond movies or any standard action movie where the hero's love interest from the first movie vanishes in the sequel.
And yet there have been action franchises where that wasn't the case. For example, the "Mummy" film series starring Brendan Fraser did not replace the female lead. The protagonists' romance is shown from beginning to end in the first film, and then by the second film, they're already married with a child. And the main conflict that they face is an exterior one, from the plot and the movie's villain. There are no more major misunderstandings or lovers' spats. That's done. They are a team and they fight together as a team. No dissolution of the romance or omission of the female lead was required.
While I haven't read the Extended Universe books, I have read a bunch of "Pride and Prejudice" retellings (or 'variations' as they're called). They're essentially published fanfiction as well, and many of them either take place after the events of the original book or during the story, essentially serving as an alternate version of how Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet end up together. And the ones that I've liked understand this as well: if the book is a sequel to "Pride and Prejudice," it's usually a slice-of-life narrative showing Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth's married life. If there is conflict, it's usually an external one. There may be minor disagreements between Darcy and Elizabeth, as they are still strong-willed individuals after all. But the major problems that drove them apart in the original book no longer exist. Darcy does not revert to flagrantly insulting Elizabeth's family. Elizabeth does not make sweeping judgments about him or other people. They're happily married and they stay that way. Because the writers understand that that's what P&P fans want to see and they realize that if Darcy and Elizabeth did revert to their old flaws, that would render their overall character development in the original book pointless.
Unfortunately, this is what happened in "Restore Me," the fourth novel in the "Shatter Me" series by Tahereh Mafi. Originally, "Shatter Me" was only supposed to be a three-book series and many fans, including myself, were happy at the ending that we got. It was open-ended in terms of the characters' future. But as far as the characters themselves, it wrapped up their emotional conflicts. Juliette grew from a timid, self-hating mess who feared and hated Aaron to a more confident and self-assured person who fell in love with him. The love triangle was resolved and the villain was vanquished.
But in "Restore Me," that was all stripped away for the new conflict. After everything that Aaron and Juliette went through together in the series, after the slow build of their relationship which resulted in their mutual trust, love, and respect for each other, they're now back at square one. A crazy ex-girlfriend is created and thrown into the mix for no reason, causing Juliette to become paranoid and doubtful of Aaron's feelings for her and she herself becomes as erratic as she was back at the asylum. All of the character growth that she underwent to become a stronger person is now reversed.
A lot of books on writing emphasize conflict as the key to the story. They advise authors to heighten the stakes, to not let the characters relax too much, to find any possible areas for conflict that they can explore. But I think that this advice can be taken too far when writers are so desperate to create conflict that they make their characters out to be people who learn nothing for the sake of having conflict.
Juliette and Aaron ended up happily ever after together in "Ignite Me?" Well, we need conflict for "Restore Me," so let's create trouble in paradise and have her mistrust him all over again.
Rey is conflicted over her parents and is angry with Kylo over Han? Nope, not enough conflict. Let's make Luke act like a total jerk to her so that Kylo is the only person that she can turn to.
Han and Leia's son fell to the Dark Side? Nope, that's not traumatic enough, so let's break up their marriage and completely render their three-movie-long romance pointless. Because it's not like they could go after their son together while still being married, like Rick and Evie did in "The Mummy Returns." It's not like Luke could help his sister and brother-in-law out like Jonathan did with his family. No, let's separate Han and Leia, kill Han off, and make Luke abandon his family to go sulk on an island. And if anybody complains, we'll say that "people change over time" and leave it at that.
So, I think that this trope may be due to two things: 1) needing to create conflict and 2) not knowing how to create conflict that fits with the ending of the character arc in the previous film/series.
