Why are you Addicted to Uninteresting Characters? (betrayal)

This is not a query as to why this is a bad thing its just a question of why. See with the release of betrayal I have become convinced that no one actually wants to see interesting well reasoned characters that have something more going on that the standard good-evil dichotomy. Right and wrong to me are not the only choices, there are a million degrees of right and a million degrees of wrong and when a character is properly motivated down one path it is worth more to me than dozen good guys or a dozen bad guys.

For example, I loved Lorz Geptun from shatterpoint specifically because he was uniquely himself. He was sort of a villian sort of a guy you could respect and he was non standard. It wasn't that you could label him as a hero or a villian you more had to call him an antagonist. Thats the key. When you define the characters as antagonistic and protagonistic.

Take Jacen, which for those of you who aren't blind and deaf is what I have been hinting at from sentance one. Why must his choices always result in him becoming a villian or a hero? For example, in DN he was sometimes the protagonist, sometimes a heplful presence and sometimes an antagonist depending on who you are asking. Thus now that he has decided to pursue the sith why must he suddenly become the enemy of the entire galaxy? Why can't it be that say luke rejects the choice categorically, his sister understands that its a dangerous path but is not convinced that he can't walk the line and Jagged Fel still likes him without reservation. Meanwhile depending on the situation he could be friend or foe or neither. He can stop by and help Kyp Durron hunt down a criminal, disrupt leia's negotiation with a star system or engage corran horn in a duel to the death.

The ultimate answer, now that the question has been sort of defined is, Why do you want characters to remain uninteresting?

 

It's not neccesarily that people want the characters to remain uninteresting- they want them to remain stable. And that's the key- every single book seems like it's a life-changing, galaxy-altering event. That can be a good thing- in moderation. But having it every story causes it to lose impact on the audience. Gone are the days of just a simple romp where the characters just own a 'villian of the week'.

 

I want Jacen to be exactly like you describe. So there. I win.

 

I sort of understand your premise. Jumping off of Dark Nest (which I generally found disappointing on the whole), I thought it would be interesting if Jacen developed into something of a lone wolf Jedi (which is still sort of what he is currently---at least from the perspective of everyone else), a guy who plays by his own rules. But I don't see his apparent turn in the most recent book as uninteresting.

As for this---

engage corran horn in a duel to the death

---you do know that it would result in Jacen's death, right? Corran is immortal; he only appears to die---in every book.

 

Some crave simplicity, some don?t. I for one can?t get enough of seeing Jacen portrayed as the subversive individual who defies labels and takes responsibility for acting according to the necessities of each situation in the manner that he deems necessary. Life isn?t a place were safety net ideals will always be enough to correct any problem. I prefer fiction that accepts and confronts this truth rather than running away from it.

However, this isn?t to be confused with me saying that every single action a character like Jacen undertakes is always right. Throw the ?apologist? label my way and I?ll in turn throw it right back. I just don?t see why it?s so hard to accept someone can have as much light in them as they do a dark side. In the end, though, I think many readers will always have severe difficulties sympathizing with a character that doesn?t necessarily cling to their own world-view. And that comes back to the whole stability idea alluded to earlier. Stability to a point is good, but when one becomes so entrenched in thought that never wavers from an absolutist preference or perspective, that?s when stability moves into the realm of stagnation.

 

Why, you ask? . . . Maybe it's because we know nothing about them?

Where does Kenobi homeworld from? Why do people counter what's the urgent need to know, when all it takes is a few words? What is Skywalker really like? I don't actually know him; his tastes and vices, what he does in his offduty. All he does is get Forceful with villains and spout American-written philosophy. Did Organa Solo ever want to replace her pet pittins from Alderaan?

I don't really know many of the secondary support cast of the series either, when you think about it. Does Solo's rugman get itchy in the small of his back time to time? Does Lando's breath stink? So many villians and villainesses---you know nothing about them.

How, then, am I supposed to care?

 

Frankly I am confused by you excellence. That post makes no sense. You say, that despite the fact that you know intimate details of Han and Leia's sex life, their thoughts and raison d'etres, moments of weakness and so forth, because you don't get to see them on the crapper (enough) you don't want them to be interestingly motivated? Thats seems... weak.

I am asking why a character must be something else, an artificial construct in the mold of evil or good, unable to have REAL issues without suddenly flipping like a pancake to the opposite side and gaining a whole list of unsavory and melodramatic habits in the process.

Why does killing someone in cold blood make you less of a loving husband? Is it because you are tormented by it and withdraw from human contact? Is it because as you become more callous to death you become more callous towards life? Or does it not at all? Why would the same fan community that giggles at the thought of Han shooting first not be willing to tolerate interestingly different characters.

I like the fact that rational thinking can lead you to a scary place, and I like that rational thinking can keep you there without malice or ill will, but thats just me.

 

Don't bother trying to make Ex explain, no one else can.

 

Jacen is an interesting character but I don´t see he is walking any line.
What line is he walking when he kills other Jedi and (says the spoilers, I haven´t read the book) innocent people.

 

The line between the Dark Side and the Light Side...?


Though I would argue that he's already over the line and into the Dark.

 

Well without reading the books your at a servere disadvantage in judging what's what. That said, the ultimate question is of course "does intent always trump action?". Is the natural state of the universe light, dark or some combination? Why is a predator killing prey not the dark side, or is it? In that case is the dark side really all that "bad". Or is the dark side the disruption of the force and the light side the purity of the force. In that case a katarn disembowling a woolamander (if it somehow got onto Yavin) and feasting on its intestines while it clung feebly to life would be a light side act.

Depending on the nature of the dark side and the light side you can claim Jacen is on one side or another, even using an external dark side until you answer what the dark side is and what the light side is you are left with nothing. Thus Jacen is walking a line, his line goes into inot scary unpleasent places nbut does it go into the darkside? And if it does does that matter. Sometimes a road leads you through shadows. Does the fact that you kill men in times of war make you a bad person, more likely to kill for no reason? Many of the soldiers at My Lai lived for years as normal productive citizens never getting in worse than a bar fight.

The ultimate question I am asking is why must what SIDE your on trump who you are?

 

That's why many larger characters' actions must fit into either a good or evil category. Because most of the main characters of Star Wars are active Force users. Personal morality is a totally different thing, something which we've seen several characters struggle with (most recently Han) without their actions really being defined as either completely good or completely evil. Normal people, like the non-Force-sensitives in Star Wars, are defined by no morality but their own (and to some extent, the reader's).

Jacen and his actions, though, can't be judged according to the "shades of grey" morality. As a Force user, he is subject to the Force and its duality, and the ways in which he chooses to use the Force (or let the Force use him) can quite clearly be judged as Light or Dark, if not good or evil. The degree to which one is steeped in the Light or the Dark can change, but there is a line.

This is not to say that the things you suggest Jacen might do would not happen, simply because he has now become a Sith. As we've seen, being a Sith does not necessarily make you a frothing maniac who desires to kill everyone. It is quite possible that he will be an entirely new kind of Sith, personality-wise, at least. However, the simple fact (in my view) is that use of the Dark side corrupts a person. Whether he's viewed as an antagonist or a protagonist, Jacen will eventually be twisted from what he was, into an "agent of evil".

Why this makes him uninteresting, I don't know. I personally find him very interesting; the slow depiction of his fall has been shown to almost as great an extent as that of Anakin Skywalker. And through it all, we still were never certain that he was falling. Now that we know he has/will, we don't know what will happen to him, exactly how his views will change, exactly what he will do. There will certainly be those who embrace him, just as there will be those who despise him, and those who sympathize. All of that will still happen, so what's the problem?

 

And there you stumble onto the fundamental issue. The entire interest of Jacens character right now hinges entirely on the fact that the "dark side" has NOTHING to do with his decisions and actions. At no point has his mind or sould been tainted by anything more than logic and expierience.

Furthermore the actual "line" between good and evil is never so defined that you can never ever definitively say that any type of action is on one side of the line or another. Even with an external darkside there is still context and that goes a hell of a llong way.

So, the question is not whether or not he is on the dark side or the light side, but whether that matters at all. Is he suddenly going to start torturing puppies because he made a questionable decision? That is what I call uninteresting. You have a fabulouly motivated character that does everything he does in the service of a higher cause. He is nice to people and children, strangers even, he seeks to minimuze death and suffering and he loves his daughter. He also might kill you because you are an obstacle. Does the dark side make him do it? Well if it does then thats really kinda uninteresting, and I am asking why people seem to be addicted to this syndrome.

 

That's not always true. Many different applications of the Force -- mostly Dark Side powers -- are ALWAYS evil despite any rationale. (Force Lightning for example)

 

Well, first of all, YOUR entire interest seems to stem from Jacen's perceived disconnect from the Dark side. I would argue that Jacen is in no way free from the Dark side's influence, and hasn't been for some time now. But I can see how you'd think that he makes his decisions on his own, and given how it's written that's certainly feasible. Of course, I'd also argue that much more than "logic and experience" factors into his decisions: pride, for one, colors much of what he does, along with greed for new paths to power in the Force.

Using the Force to directly harm or destroy life is, definitively, of the Dark side. Murdering an innocent, while not being "of the Dark side" per se, is definitely never a step in the right direction.

I fail to see why Jacen's character is more interesting than, say, an Anakin Skywalker. He does everything in the service of a higher cause; he's nice to nearly everyone, if not always polite. He seeks to minimize death and suffering, and loves his wife. He'll also kill you if you get in the way of his higher ideals. Did the Dark side make him do it? No. But it was these actions that made him susceptible to the Dark side's influence, and thus led to the torturing of puppies. Similarly, Jacen has made his own choices, and still makes them to a degree; however, the fact that he does so in service of a higher ideal does not allow him to resist the Dark side where everyone else who has tried to do so in such a way has failed.

 

Why yes it does, how astute of you. Now the pride angle is a factor, but what that has mostly done is lead him to not question his inital/eventual read of a situation. Its the difference between saying "I must kill you because you are a threat to all dogs everywhere" and "I might be wrong that it was you who killed my dog and you might not kill all the other dogs in the world even though that is a distinct possibilty"

I am honestly perplexed by this. This is intention trumping action. Now there are two situations here. IN one place force lightning is electricity. There is alot of evidence for this. UNder that statement, then its no different that a force shove in terms of light/dark. In the other its a disruption of space/time and the force a la a force storm, in which case the action is inherently negative, like murder, but under appropriate circumstances it can be in the service of light action and the light side. Assuming once again that the two are adversarial and mutually exclusive, which there is little evidence of in the first place.

Now if your looking at stovers version of anakin you are correct. He is an interesting character, the darkside didn't make him do it. I never said otherwise. If you look at the movie character, then yes he is uninteresting and the dark side did make him do it. I never claim that characters aren't intersting, I ask why people, IE not me and a few others, are addicted to uninteresting characters.

[wheel of time]
Now to further illustrate and follow through, I would like to make a wheel of time comparison. The difference between Colavere and Marillin Gemalphin is the point, one is a morally evil character that is cruel and what not, the other sold her soul to the devil and is unremittedly evil no matter what else she does. Which pursuing the analogy further is why the only way for one like that to gain redemtion is through death, a la Ingtar. Carrying the metaphor further and also exposing why the metaphor is flawed most of the people who give their souls to the dark one do so out of personal motivation. The best analogy to star wars is suddenly becoming evil because someone puts a circle of 13 black sisters and 13 fades around you. Thats uninteresting.[/wheel of time]

My ultimate point is that categorical evil/goodness gets in the way of interesting characterization. Take conan for example. Classic sith lord, also hero extraordinare.

 

First, you shouldn´t use examples outside Star Wars or real life. I don´t care one way or other and I have read "The Wheel of Time" but do you think that a person who hasn´t read it has understood anything you have said?

Second: Would you like to live in a world where the police can (and will) kill you just because you are at the wrong place at the wrong time? Or a friend? Or your family?

Third: Conan and Jacen are NOTHING alike.

 

it completely depends on your point of view whether or not Jacen made a bad decision...i consider it heoric because he had the guts to kill a friend (something he really struggled to do and felt horrible about).....to save the galaxy!!....he sees in almost every possible future that the galaxy goes bad if he doesnt do it...so regrettably he does....theres nothing wrong with that...whereas some consider it evil just cause shes a jedi....well imo it doesnt matter what he/she is....he killed one to save millions...I hope that these somewhat controversional decisions dont twist him dark so he cant walk the line.....as of now i think he is still a good guy, trying to save the day...with that said, the darkside can twist good people

 

First off, I was adressing Ashandarei directly there, if your not a fan then your not invited. I know he is because his name is taken from the wheel of time and its an easy paralell for any fan to associate and helps lubricate the communications difficulties.

Second, your strawman arguement is not only a logical fallacy in and of itself its also completely unreflective of the nature of the arguement and completely tangetial to the actual topic.
-We are talking about interesting characters that are true to their choices not arbitrary designations of good and evil.
-Having an arbitrary and capricous police force prone to random summary executions is a completely different thing than a precient law enforcement agency, I suggest you watch Minority report.
-A hostage dying in the line of fire is a common and tragic occurance, it does not however mean that the police were wrong to save a dozen hostages by taking the shot. I suggest you read Homicide: A year on the killing streets, it will wipe some of the stars from your eyes and clean up your perception of law enforcement.

Third, Conan is a morally repugnent hero who will kill you for the money in your pocket then sleep with your wife. The point is not that he and jacen share a similarity of methods or morality only that they are both true to themselves and own their crimes. They are also furthermore both protagonists/antagonists.

 

And this isn't a bad thing how? It's led him to assume that every conclusion he draws is the right one. It's also led to the deaths of at least two innocents by his hand, as well as others who didn't need to die at all.

Even putting aside the physical properties of Force Lightning, the simple fact remains that it is a power, summoned through anger and hatred, which damages the very thing that creates the Force: life. I have yet to see it being used to power a lightbulb or restart a dead droid. It is a corruption of the Force, intended solely as a weapon. A Force shove used against a living person actually is a Darkside act, since it's the equivalent of smashing them in the torso with a brick wall, which is why you don't see many Jedi simply shoving people around.

As for there being little evidence that the Light and Dark sides are adversarial ... did you even watch the movies? Have you read any of the books? In nearly every conflict throughout Star Wars history, the Light side and the Dark side have clashed through sentient surrogates. This can't be simply because every adherent of both sides was unwilling to compromise. The two are diametrically opposed.

The movie character wasn't controlled by the Dark side any more than Stover's character was. Anakin Skywalker made a choice; he wasn't coerced by any supernatural entity (although his emotional state was carefully manipulated). This conscious choice, though, allowed him to become corrupted by the Dark side, turning him from a moral man committed to seeing justice don

 

And that might not have been the worst thing that could have happened. It could have been 20 or a million. But the point is that it is an interesting and RATIONAL choice. Its not out of the woodwork evil,its not even really evil, its pragmatism.

And yet.... some force lightning doesn't kill, sometimes its electric justice and sometimes the ends justify the means. To label it as categorically evil while true in the simplest way, is untrue in the vast wilds of their reality as there are so many situations where its use outweighs its evil. For example zapping a hostage taker and shorting out his explosives....

There is evidence that the sith and the jedi are antagonistic, but there is no evidence in the EU that the darkside is always the darkside as we know it, is always malignant and so on. And even if they are diametrically opposed, which most evidence points to, thats not the same as adversarial. If the light side is an absence of passion and the dark side is passion then well yes they are oppposed but not adversarial. If the dark side is another energy source with no will then once again....

See if the darkside is unnatural then the lightside must encompass savagry and violence. If the darkside is natural then why not use it?

But I get sidetracked. The point is that the dark side as a seductive force of evil is narrowing and kills character individuality and hence their interest.

Aside from the fact that the book was a good book and the movie was a bad movie, thats only true when you use the book to justify the movie. In the movie Anakin goes from being tortured over Mace Windu to wacking little kids up. Its whats known as a non-sequtior, Finally he was if you read stover well never a good or moral man. He was always a hot tempered person who found eventual solace in rage and freedom from fear in the sith. He chose not being human over not being afraid.

 

Shrimpus, you don't really know the core cast, or too much of the support crew either, other than just seeing them fight and battle. That's not characterisation. Characterisation---to say nothing of developing characterisation---is about throwing these little tidbits here and there, that shows they liked this and disliked that. It's called flavouring the food, and doesn't require Luceno-class infodumping.

 

Rational, eh? So, Jacen sees himself killing Luke, and his solution to kill another person is the rational choice? How about, I don't know, not killing Luke? Does Jacen have no control over his actions?

Jacen may think he's being rational, but he's more influenced by emotion then he cares to admit. He doesn't want to accept responsibility, doesn't want to admit the possibility of being mistaken, so he takes the easiest and quickest path he sees. Killing Nelani is the solution of the moment, the first thing that comes to mind and the solution that requires the least amount of consideration, and rather than take the time to think it through he lashes out to make the bad things go away.

If you ask me, the rational decision is the one that Leia comes to at literally the same time (and it's no coincidence that Allston did that). That regardless of her emotional stake in a situation, she will not take lives that she has no right to take.

You're confusing fact and opinion. And it's false that you can only get that interpretation from the book. Nowhere does the movie portray Anakin as possessed or controlled. Honestly, regarding the "Anakin fell in five minutes!" people, I have to wonder if they were even watching the movie. If you think that he began falling only after he killed Mace, well, you should probably watch the first half of ROTS again. And AOTC. And TPM, for that matter. The roots of Anakin's fall go a long way back, and attacking Mace just creates a point of no return.

 

Um, the book opens with Luke foreseeing the personal pain this enemy who doesn't yet exist but does by the end of the book (Jacen as a Sith) will cause him. Kinda suggests, um... bad. So I think it's a pretty foregone conclusion that the DS will corrupt Jacen, really.

 

Well, given that Nelani was the deflector in each one of those futures...yes. He might have control over his actions but in all the futures in which Nelani lives he is probably given a really good reason to kill luke. A really good reason to kill luke is whats called an extremely unpleasent expierience.

Granted there is of course an emotional aspect to everything, without it he wouldn't be human and thus wouldn't be interesting. I say rational and pragmatic, but these things don't exclude emotion, they require it. The emotional evaluation that Luke and the tradgedies that will befall him and the Galaxy is worth more than Nelani's life is a fundamentally emotional response. Just like all those damn the odds I won't leave a friend behind moments of heroism.

The pragmatic part is the solution. Whether it is the best solution is another question entirely, but it is a pragmatic one. Pragmatism is all about expidiency and you don't get much more expiedient than that. THere were a dozen better solutions and if we knew the real future then you could make that into a hundred.

Thats a completely irrational standpoint. It offers no definition to anything. Whether or not its morally commendable in that particular situation is another thing entirely. Sure for that one situation it was a-okay, but in Jacens situation? No.

PLus once again we seem to have gotten sidetracked, despite by best efforts otherwise. All I want to know is why people dislike characters characters that are interesting?

Look, I am not one to say right off the bat that my word is law or that my opinion is fact, but I also believe that holistic evaluation of something is quite possible, and given the general definition of a good movie, Revenge of the Sith didn't count. Whether or not its 100% solid fact is of course debatable but I would give it a R^2 of somewhere in the high 90's. Secondly, the question of Anakins fall, of course it took place over the course of many movies and scenes, however the "point of no return" as you call it was still a moment of great confusion. Going from that to fullfledged sith lord murdering children in 15 minutes was without any supporting dialouge rather weak, and it showed. Its not him falling in 5 minutes. Sometimes people fall real fast, but the fact that he had shown resistance is the issue, without adequate justification you're left with the question of why i