Monday DE, early edition: Meta Monday

[bjornwilde]

I've a busy morning and it's been a bit since I gave our European and other Eastern countries first crack, so I'm posting early. I have a couple of meta questions today, which I hope you'll have fun with.

Over at writing excuses, they recently been looking at types of heroes protagonists, and spent an episode talking about icon heroes protagonist verses, say epic protagonists*. Icon heroes protagonists being loosely defined as heroes protagonists who don't really change throughout their canon and don't need to change in order to advance the plot or solve the challenge. Some examples are Conan, Nancy Drew, Mad Max, and Spider-Man; though in Spidey's case it's more he keeps getting rebooted to bring him back to the familiar brand/baseline.

So with this in mind, are any of your pups iconic heroes protagonists? Did you realize this going in and that was that part of the appeal of the character?

Which has me also wondering, what are some of the themes of your pup’s personal story? I'm asking more about their person story arc, and not so much the story/canon they play a part in.

(*Editing to drive home that in this case hero means protagonists, not the moral or ethic definition of hero.)

Comments

[configuration_birdwatcher]

Bastion changes in important ways over the course of The Last Bastion, and must necessarily change some more in order to become an Overwatch field agent, although the latter hasn't really been explored by canon. (Which is fine. Other characters need attention, canon releases story updates at a glacial pace, and Bastion has had their day in the sun already.) They need to go from rejecting the purpose they were constructed for entirely, to harnessing their capacity for violence for a greater good and without losing control of it.

Overwatch the game doesn't really reflect the way characters change throughout the story, though, it just takes a snapshot of them from somewhere around the relaunch of Overwatch and then makes all those snapshots fight. (Except the Archives PvE missions, I guess, where Reyes isn't Reaper yet and Genji is withdrawn and bloodthirsty.) So they all have a little bit of the iconic hero to them in that respect.

[thewidewideworld]

None of my core three characters (Jay, Bodhi, and Sinric) see themselves as heroes.

Jay is too familiar with iconic heroes. He sees them as making the same mistakes over and over, to the detriment of others. The immutable of iconic heroes got Jay killed. But in running contrary to them, he is in his own way, sticking to a particular role and code, which doesn't change much. I guess in his own way he could be considered an iconic antihero.

Sinric is a facilitator, drifting in and out of other people's stories. His presence guides the flow of events but without leaving much of a mark. In canon, he changes very little which is why I felt compelled to create his backstory.

Bodhi is more epic than iconic in this. Change defines his role in events - changing sides, changing emotional states, change in nature. He goes from a irascible, mouthy character; to damaged, twitchy, and withdrawn. Only to find resolution and quiet strength. One of this things I struggle with Bodhi is finding a balance between who he was before he was broken and the scars he carries. He's seen as a cinnamon roll for most of the film but at the start he's snarky and short tempered.

[sunbaked_baker]

Every time Jay claims not to be a hero, Sunshine in my head wants to give him a peck on the cheek and call bullshit. Gently, of course, but still calling bullshit. ^_^

[runningred]

I call bullshit too but Jay has to hold onto his delusions.

[angry_friendship_wolf]

Generally speaking, humans in Digimon Adventure are epic heroes, while Digimon are iconic heroes (with the exception of Tailmon and Patamon, who both have small arcs).

In Yam's case, his arc in 01 is largely about him coming to terms with the fact that his abandonment issues (compounded by a general lack of self-worth) make him wall himself off and push people away, and so almost function as a self-fulfilling prophecy. By the end of the series, those abandonment issues are still there (and probably always will be, along with those self-worth issues), but he's no longer deliberately putting people at a distance -- or, at the very least, he's able to rein those tendencies in.

He doesn't really have an arc in 02 (he's mostly just relegated to being a mentor for Daisuke and Ken), but Tri gives him a personal arc about him stepping out from Taichi's shadow, transitioning from being a second-in-command who is kind of at a loss as to what to do if Taichi isn't around to being a leader in his own right, who can and does lead the group in Taichi's absence (and who, if the hints that Taichi might end up studying abroad pan out, might end up doing so on a full-time basis in the future.)

[exiled_heir_of_the_eighth]

Sahaal definitely isn't an iconic hero. It's actually kinda debatable if he's a hero at all, but he definitely doesn't stay the same. He has a pretty clear progression in his personality and motives.

At the start of his novel, he's pretty much unthinkingly obedient to the strictures of his Primarch. No real doubts, no inner conflict. But as he's isolated longer and longer from his Legion, and after he sees what the Night Lords devolved into over ten thousand years, Sahaal gets to the point where he just doesn't really care about anything but his own interests.

As for themes, well:

- Authority betraying its protectors
- The clash of cultures in a military environment
- How, and why, the mighty fall
- Limited perspectives, and how they impact a character's actions

There are almost certainly more, but I unfortunately don't have a copy of Lord of the Night to hand.

[bjornwilde]

Ahsoka is definitely an epic protagonist. She goes through a lot of changes throughout her canon, from the Clone Wars, to Rebels, and beyond..at least through the Battle of Endor (RotJ).
As to themes, definitely learning and self discovery. Breaking away from the dogma of the past and finding your own path, and surviving against all odds fit as well. Not giving up hope and being a light in the darkness (literally in some scenes) is there as well.

Sabine is almost an iconic protagonist, but then the Darksaber landed in her lap and forced her to confront her past. There were some smaller changes that happened before this, so I guess she was heading away from iconic already.
Her character themes are breaking from the past and second chances, which leads to facing her past actions, accepting responsibility for them, and finding redemption.

Sam Wilson is actually an iconic protagonist, which kind of frustrates me to be honest. I like character growth. In his case, it's more that he's a supporting character and not the main, so he's there to help Steve Rogers with his path.

Tybalt, at first look, seems an iconic protagonist as he doesn't show much change, but he is not and all his change happens internally..at least until Toby allows him into her heart.
At the start of his character arc, Tybalt is more an antagonist, or frenemy to Toby, but despite his snark he personifies noblesse oblige, as well as potent self confidence.

I'll have to come back for Hank and Danny, as work beckons...

[for_everyone]

I'd argue that Star Wars in general has epic characters, as thematically it's largely concerned with the inevitability and even necessity of change, and the ability of any individual transform themselves, whether for bad or for good, and no matter how far down any particular path they've gone. There are some exceptions, particularly among antagonists, but many of the central thematic concepts of the franchise – the struggle with the Dark Side, the enduring nature of hope – inherently require dynamic characters in order to work. In fact I'd say that static characters – most often antagonists (Palpatine, Tarkin, Snoke) but also maybe in some cases heroic characters (Mace Windu? really the Jedi Order as an entity, though not every individual Jedi) are the characters who fail, and that failure can be linked to their inability to change, and/or to become what was needed of them in a given moment.

So entire Star Wars analysis aside – both Kanan and Hera are "epic" characters under this.

Kanan's story is largely about his recovering his Jedi identity and forging a new sense of self. Order 66 destroyed who he was, so completely that he changed his name (and while other Order 66 survivors use aliases, Kanan is the only one we see really stick to his) and attempted to break completely with his Jedi past. He was driven by fear and by guilt at having left his Master, and by extension the rest of the Jedi Order, to their deaths. His way of dealing with that was to avoid forging connections with anyone and simply trying to survive in the Galaxy as it had become. And his story from A New Dawn through to the end of Rebels is about accepting his actions in Order 66, and no longer letting himself be ruled by fear. Pretty much as I said above, he had to realize his own capacity for transformation, and he makes himself into Jedi Knight Kanan Jarrus, as was needed of him in that moment. The appearance of the "Dume" lothwolf and Kanan's connection to it in season 4 can be seen as his ultimate reconciliation between the person who made himself into, and who he had been before.



Hera, unfortunately, is a little more – well, we really hated the way the show ended for her, and unfortunately as we rewatch we are finding more instances where basically we feel she's being used as a sounding board for Kanan, rather than treated as a character with her own experiences and emotions. It's not exclusively that, really, and I'd argue she does have a clear arc – it's just that unfortunately it ended on a really bad, dismissive note, so.

Setting the ending aside, Hera's arc really has two sides: her undergoing a shift from being a fighter to a leader, and her having to handle her emotional relationships alongside her dedication to her cause. Over the course of the series we see Hera rise through the rebels' ranks as she takes on a greater leadership role, and how she has to balance that with her inclination to head straight into a fight. (I feel like sometimes people get this idea that Hera is the risk-conscientious one, but it's completely the opposite??? Hera is way more inclined to press into a fight than to wait, whereas Kanan's the one often kind of pulling her back and focusing more on the big picture and potential risks – Kanan learns a lot from Hera about taking risks when it's necessary and not being resigned to fear, and Hera learns a lot from Kanan about keeping a broader perspective. But seriously guys on a Mon Mothma to Saw Gerrera scale of rebel characters, Hera is really really really far toward the Saw Gerrera end.) She's also in a position where the people who are her friends and family are also – practically and sometimes literally – her subordinate officers. This is another thing where I think people fault Hera for treating the Ghost crew or others like officers under her command - but they are. Even as a 'mother figure,' she is ultimately also a military commander. The struggle of this can really come down to her risk of using others, of putting their humanity (or you know, the appropriate word) second to her cause, which I like as a struggle for her because it basically comes down to trying not to repeat the mistakes of her father. That being said, there's a reason Hera's cause is so important to her, and it's not something that should be dismissed or ignored – Hera occupies a space in the Star Wars universe where to her this fight isn't about ideals. She can fight or she can be enslaved/die. That's what it comes down to.

... and then [unpopular opinion bitterness ahead], the end of the show seemed to conclude that what was actually most important for Hera was Being A Mom, that she should make everything else secondary to her emotional relationships because being a maternal figure means that being a Mom must trump everything else, whether the leadership positions she worked for or the cause she dedicated her life to. Mom isn't here to have her own emotions/experiences but to take care of everyone else.

and..... nnnnnope nope nope nope, sorry, nope. And it's not something that would be done to a male character – 'father figures' are allowed an identity outside that, like you know, Kanan is here. It also doesn't help that they've now apparently decided to frankly really nastily fuck over Hera in the comics, Kieron Gillen please s t o p

But yes, in conclusion: all epic characters all the time.

[bjornwilde]

So much epic meta...om nom nom....

And I agree whole heartedly with your assessments of Hera. = ]

[fairy_fixit]

None of mine are ... protagonists. Amascut is a minor villain? A banal evil? There are bigger bads, more pressing problems, and that's kinda how she gets away with things? She also helpful sometimes without meaning to be? Anyhow, not a protagonist. Fairy Fixit is literally an NPC that might reveal something useful in regards to a quest. And Evil Chicken is just a random encounter.

Given the nature of their canon, status quo is king. Character and story development would screw over new players! This is the curse of MMOs

That said, there is character development for other characters, but keeping a record of every decision a player in every quest, which NPCs a player should see and where those NPCs should hang out, the NPC's relationship to the player, etc. is likely to much to ask. Amascut does get a bit of that treatment, but she doesn't get character development. All her development happened in her backstory and she hasn't changed since. After millennia of being the way she is, a personality shift would need a good explanation. Though during canon, she is close to reaching one of her long-term goals.

So I guess she is an iconic villain? And her long-term arc... I don't know. What happens to that one family member that refuses to forgive and forget the horrible event that broke up the family in the first place?