But what are your thoughts on Vriska?
Dec. 17th, 2010 06:05 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alias_sqbrI've been meaning to make non-spoilery post about the way morally ambiguous characters are written in Homestuck. This is not that post, because OMG. Instead you get semi-stream-of-consciousness rambling. Any time I try to make it more coherent it just gets longer!
Spoilers follow!
For reference, since any moment may bring important new developments, this is the most recent post at time of writing.
One of the strengths of Homestuck is the way it sets up certain expectations and then immediately undercuts them eg the recent progression cliff hanger->pratfall->random metahumour->heartwarming adorableness->major character death (sort of).
As much as those terms make any sense, Bec Noir is the villain of Homestuck and John is the hero. But other than that the characters don't always divide neatly into good guys and bad guys. There are good and bad people and good and bad actions (both depending very much on your personal moral compass and interpretation of events etc) but they don't always line up in a neat consistent way and there's lots of shades of grey.
In any other story Terezi would probably be at best a very controversial morally ambiguous good guy. At the equivalent of 13 (or maybe 12, the timeline pre-Sgrub confuses me) she got together with a friend to trick other teenagers she thought were bad people into getting killed and eaten. She currently regrets this, but only because some of her victims were not actually bad people by her morality. She also put John in a position that got him killed just to see if she could. And yet she comes across as fairly unambiguously sympathetic. Rose is similar, if more worrying because it looks like she's getting increasingly ruthless.
There are no good guys during the intermission at all.
What I like about Vriska is that although she is on the "good" side, and from the start of Hivebent seems to be sincerely pursuing the same goals as everyone else on her side (finish Sgrub, defeat Bec Noir etc) she is introduced as, and remains, a self absorbed unpredictable psychopath(*) who will happily cause the death of innocent people and even her friends for fairly flimsy reasons. She's definitely had some character development, and I can't think of any recent actions which have come close to the unadulterated selfish nastiness of killing Aradia or "pushing" Tavros off the cliff, but her basic nature remains the same. She isn't Spike in Season 4 of Buffy, who was a bad guy in theory, but cooperated with the good guys and never actually succeeded in killing anyone so we(**) could sympathise with him without too much cognitive dissonance (Eridan is a bit like this though). She's more like Damon in The Vampire Diaries (well, from what I've seen of it) so self confidently charming and audacious that you find yourself laughing along when they cheerfully manipulate and mess with others…right until they do something unforgivably awful to a character you're encouraged to sympathise with. But Damon is still to a large extent an antagonist while Vriska mostly isn't. Not only are her actions often the "right" ones, but we genuinely sympathise with her clueless attempts to make friends and adorable crush on Nicholas Cage etc. And with such a large cast the line between "protagonist" and "antagonist" is complicated: look at the Jade/Tavros/Vriska conversation sequence recently, where I found myself seeing things from first Jade's POV (Killing grandad was a bad idea), then Vriska's (that was embarrassing to watch) then Tavros's (Vriska has gone too far) then none of them.
Something I find annoying about the conversations on the forums is all the people going "Vriska is totally evil and I wish she'd just die", and then those who counter with "Vriska is totally justified in her actions". I think she's great to watch and I sympathise with her in some ways and many of her actions seem justified (at least the broad strokes, her implementation could use some work)…but she really is a pretty nasty person, and her interpretation of events is pretty messed up and self serving. But! While I definitely like to see her proven wrong and taken down a peg or two from time to time (I especially would like to see Tavros get the better of her in a confrontation at least once, though preferably not a violent one) I don't understand or like the "She deserves to be punished" POV(***).
A while ago I thought about the way Vriska treated Tavros as a result of having a thing for him and thought "Oh crap John is doomed". I was also a bit worried that Vriska's attitude that the only reason Tavros didn't appreciate her "helping him become a stronger person" was that he was too weak would be supported by the text. Thus while I was pretty WTFBBQ at John being stabbed in the chest, I am looking forward to seeing what happens to the dynamic between them now (I'm not sure John will take "Oh but now you can be your dreamself!" or even "But you were going to die anyway!" as adequate justification for what appears to have been her deliberately and cheerfully leading him off to get killed without telling him)
Along similar lines, I like that we have seen Rose and Fereri being disturbingly pro Horrorterror yet it's not at all clear that they're wrong to trust them, and they still have endearing friendly conversations etc. Or in the opposite direction, the way that Jade's "helpful" visions were what set Jack on his path. In a universe with time travel and predestination "the right thing to do" is incredibly complicated.
And despite her being my favourite troll I'm waiting for Terezi to do something jarringly nasty, isn't she behind one dead Dave? She wouldn't kill him the same way Vriska did John, but she's certainly capable of being pretty cold bloodedly violent.
Once the similarity to Damon occurred to me I was struck at how much more popular he is than Vriska in his fandom (afaict) even though he's a much more villainous character, and I have to wonder how much of that is sexism. Female characters aren't allowed to be morally ambiguous, and they're definitely not allowed to do horrible things to sympathetic male characters as part of an independent agenda.
And now I am sleepy after a long day so I will finish there. I have a feeling I'm about to become VERY ILL and be unable to check my mail for a bit (which is why I'm posting this now, by the time I feel well again it'll be totally outdated and I'll have to write it again!), but I will appreciate any comments and respond when I am able.
(*)In the fictional sense, I don't know if she fits the actual diagnostic criteria
(**)"We" here being "Me and anyone else who had similar reactions", YMMV
(***)Which has more to do with her arrogance than her lack of ethics. I like to see Dave taken down a peg or two from time to time as well. Arrogant characters who are always right are annoying, especially but not only if I disagree with the things they believe so arrogantly. But as long as the text doesn't agree with them I can live with them continuing with their wrondheadedness, and enjoy seeing them take a fall because it is funny/satisfying, not because they deserve it.
Spoilers follow!
For reference, since any moment may bring important new developments, this is the most recent post at time of writing.
One of the strengths of Homestuck is the way it sets up certain expectations and then immediately undercuts them eg the recent progression cliff hanger->pratfall->random metahumour->heartwarming adorableness->major character death (sort of).
As much as those terms make any sense, Bec Noir is the villain of Homestuck and John is the hero. But other than that the characters don't always divide neatly into good guys and bad guys. There are good and bad people and good and bad actions (both depending very much on your personal moral compass and interpretation of events etc) but they don't always line up in a neat consistent way and there's lots of shades of grey.
In any other story Terezi would probably be at best a very controversial morally ambiguous good guy. At the equivalent of 13 (or maybe 12, the timeline pre-Sgrub confuses me) she got together with a friend to trick other teenagers she thought were bad people into getting killed and eaten. She currently regrets this, but only because some of her victims were not actually bad people by her morality. She also put John in a position that got him killed just to see if she could. And yet she comes across as fairly unambiguously sympathetic. Rose is similar, if more worrying because it looks like she's getting increasingly ruthless.
There are no good guys during the intermission at all.
What I like about Vriska is that although she is on the "good" side, and from the start of Hivebent seems to be sincerely pursuing the same goals as everyone else on her side (finish Sgrub, defeat Bec Noir etc) she is introduced as, and remains, a self absorbed unpredictable psychopath(*) who will happily cause the death of innocent people and even her friends for fairly flimsy reasons. She's definitely had some character development, and I can't think of any recent actions which have come close to the unadulterated selfish nastiness of killing Aradia or "pushing" Tavros off the cliff, but her basic nature remains the same. She isn't Spike in Season 4 of Buffy, who was a bad guy in theory, but cooperated with the good guys and never actually succeeded in killing anyone so we(**) could sympathise with him without too much cognitive dissonance (Eridan is a bit like this though). She's more like Damon in The Vampire Diaries (well, from what I've seen of it) so self confidently charming and audacious that you find yourself laughing along when they cheerfully manipulate and mess with others…right until they do something unforgivably awful to a character you're encouraged to sympathise with. But Damon is still to a large extent an antagonist while Vriska mostly isn't. Not only are her actions often the "right" ones, but we genuinely sympathise with her clueless attempts to make friends and adorable crush on Nicholas Cage etc. And with such a large cast the line between "protagonist" and "antagonist" is complicated: look at the Jade/Tavros/Vriska conversation sequence recently, where I found myself seeing things from first Jade's POV (Killing grandad was a bad idea), then Vriska's (that was embarrassing to watch) then Tavros's (Vriska has gone too far) then none of them.
Something I find annoying about the conversations on the forums is all the people going "Vriska is totally evil and I wish she'd just die", and then those who counter with "Vriska is totally justified in her actions". I think she's great to watch and I sympathise with her in some ways and many of her actions seem justified (at least the broad strokes, her implementation could use some work)…but she really is a pretty nasty person, and her interpretation of events is pretty messed up and self serving. But! While I definitely like to see her proven wrong and taken down a peg or two from time to time (I especially would like to see Tavros get the better of her in a confrontation at least once, though preferably not a violent one) I don't understand or like the "She deserves to be punished" POV(***).
A while ago I thought about the way Vriska treated Tavros as a result of having a thing for him and thought "Oh crap John is doomed". I was also a bit worried that Vriska's attitude that the only reason Tavros didn't appreciate her "helping him become a stronger person" was that he was too weak would be supported by the text. Thus while I was pretty WTFBBQ at John being stabbed in the chest, I am looking forward to seeing what happens to the dynamic between them now (I'm not sure John will take "Oh but now you can be your dreamself!" or even "But you were going to die anyway!" as adequate justification for what appears to have been her deliberately and cheerfully leading him off to get killed without telling him)
Along similar lines, I like that we have seen Rose and Fereri being disturbingly pro Horrorterror yet it's not at all clear that they're wrong to trust them, and they still have endearing friendly conversations etc. Or in the opposite direction, the way that Jade's "helpful" visions were what set Jack on his path. In a universe with time travel and predestination "the right thing to do" is incredibly complicated.
And despite her being my favourite troll I'm waiting for Terezi to do something jarringly nasty, isn't she behind one dead Dave? She wouldn't kill him the same way Vriska did John, but she's certainly capable of being pretty cold bloodedly violent.
Once the similarity to Damon occurred to me I was struck at how much more popular he is than Vriska in his fandom (afaict) even though he's a much more villainous character, and I have to wonder how much of that is sexism. Female characters aren't allowed to be morally ambiguous, and they're definitely not allowed to do horrible things to sympathetic male characters as part of an independent agenda.
And now I am sleepy after a long day so I will finish there. I have a feeling I'm about to become VERY ILL and be unable to check my mail for a bit (which is why I'm posting this now, by the time I feel well again it'll be totally outdated and I'll have to write it again!), but I will appreciate any comments and respond when I am able.
(*)In the fictional sense, I don't know if she fits the actual diagnostic criteria
(**)"We" here being "Me and anyone else who had similar reactions", YMMV
(***)Which has more to do with her arrogance than her lack of ethics. I like to see Dave taken down a peg or two from time to time as well. Arrogant characters who are always right are annoying, especially but not only if I disagree with the things they believe so arrogantly. But as long as the text doesn't agree with them I can live with them continuing with their wrondheadedness, and enjoy seeing them take a fall because it is funny/satisfying, not because they deserve it.
