Homesuck: Vriska Rising

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Geminex

I do think we should not be arguing about fictional internet trolls.

But then what would we argue about?! We have to have something to argue about, otherwise we would need to agree with each other . And frankly I just don't see that being very fun at all.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Loyal

I believe he's saying that the way an author intends for something to develop isn't necessarily the way that development will actually happen

That's not how writing works.

or more specifically how it will come across to the readers.

It's hardly a new phenomenon. Take FFTA, for instance. Who're we supposed to be rooting for again?

However, that's a difference in what one finds justifiable. No one goes on to accuse the doucher of being a psychopath, or doing what he does because he's just narcissistic or whatever.

At least no one who actually spends the time paying attention to the story line.

The difference of opinion comes with whether escaping to their fantasy dream world is terrible or not. He thinks it is and believes he's doing the right thing for all of his friends by pulling them back into the real world. No one who has even the vaguest understanding of the story or the character is going to argue otherwise.

The argument is that he's wrong and it was actually a totally terrible thing for them to do. Which is fine, because you aren't rewriting a character, you're simply disagreeing with the conclusions that character came to from their motivations.

FOR INSTANCE: Vriska is wrong about how pushing Tavros to go up a bunch of stairs will make him stronger if he succeeds. She's wrong that it would absolve her guilt in crippling him in the first place. She's wrong that Terezi being able to smell things makes it ok that she blinded her.

However, her motivations are what they are, regardless of whether we as readers agree with the outcomes.

There may be some kind of argument if Hussie hadn't used a reliable narrator character to explain what Vriska's dysfunction was, or if her dysfunction didn't fit with what she did. However, neither of these are true.

Thus, her motivations are what they are. It's up to us to interpret whether her motivations make her actions worse, or better, or whether she's a pitiable or hatable or just amusing character.

That's where the difference lies here, and why Fifth is just wrong about Vriska, not having a different interpretation that is totally equally valid as everyone else's.

HE'S FURTHER wrong because he's been nothing but a total douchebag about how he PRESENTS that interpretation that is not actually justified in the story at all, with comments like:

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Homestuck, the internet's best measure of people's ability to empathize with narcissistic sociopaths.

All over the goddamn place.

I'd be willing to let him keep on being wrong and pat him on the head and say "Yes, Fifthy, your interpretations are equally valid as the author's even though they are considerably weaker from the standpoint of the story placed forth than these other interpretations that the author has done everything he can to beat us over the head with," IF he wasn't such a goddamned asshole about it, or even if he didn't bring it up at EVERY POSSIBLE GODDAMNED OPPORTUNITY.

Because at the end of the day, if Hussie HADN'T gone out of the way to beat us over the head with what, exactly, is wrong with Vriska it would be a matter of opinion, and hey, Fifth's shit still stinks like everyone else's. And, frankly? I'm tired of having it rubbed all over my face every time I look in this thread.

Also, characters (well-written ones anyway) totally should have a "life of their own," in that they react to the setting they're in rather than what the author says they should be doing.

The author is still giving them that 'life of their own' and their motivations. They aren't living beings that have lives outside of the author's mind.

[IHateMakingNames]

The issue with Vriska is that it seems we're supposed to redeem her because she isn't evil, it's that Troll society is evil (Or to justify her actions). The problem is, up until recently, she's been the only troll who acts that way. From 11/12 examples we've been given, Trolls are just dicks at worst. There were even more kind Trolls than dickish Trolls.

[Kim]

Very true. The worst aspects of troll society have all been relayed via telling, instead of showing, largely due to the nature of the troll arc, and the tone of the story, so if anything that's one of Hussie's biggest faults with the troll characters.

That and there being too many of them for how much time has been dedicated to them. This is something worth going further into, but I'll do it later.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by NonCon

Very true. The worst aspects of troll society have all been relayed via telling, instead of showing, largely due to the nature of the troll arc, and the tone of the story, so if anything that's one of Hussie's biggest faults with the troll characters.

That and there being too many of them for how much time has been dedicated to them. This is something worth going further into, but I'll do it later.

Yeah, the Karkat was just such a good leader thing was kinda a terrible last second patch job on it.

And, I'm not in any way arguing that Vriska isn't a huge bitch or is for totally sure not evil. What I AM saying is that she has empathy, and she's not a one dimensional comic book villain.

I mean, I don't think this redeems her. I think it's supposed to make it more clear to the readers how Vriska thinks and set her up for her eventual possible redemption (or she may never redeem herself). WHICH is part of the reason I think Nonsie is wrong about her death (the other part being the general 'importance' of the characters who have been killed so far, with the only real important fatality getting back up and joining the ranks of the undead, and the just general ridiculousness of the only god tier being ganked by some murderer).

[Solid Snake]

...Aww man, I missed a Vriska debate!

That's too bad, as I have a slightly different twist on Vriska.

It's not her villainy that makes me despise her. Well-written villains are fun characters to "love to hate," and if Vriska was just a complete monster I'd probably just enjoy hating on her and praying for her destruction.

It's all the shit she gets away with that pisses me off. It's like, here's a character who happens to be a completely dislikable jerk, and she's also the very TV Tropes definition of a Mary Sue, and she's wielding some form of indestructible plot armor, and she's single-handedly responsible for about eighty to ninety percent of Homestuck's plot, and Hussie wants us to pity her and empathize with her and has been extraordinarily over-defensive of her, to the point that it's clear that the author is advancing some sort of agenda with her every time she pops up in the story.

Really I think it was somewhat disappointing to read through Andrew's formspring as I prefer it when authors view their characters about equally and allow the characters to write themselves. But then you read how much contempt Andrew has for trolls like Equius (and his fans) while he's fucking parading Vriska around on the S.S. "She is fucking amazing, don't you just love her?" She cripples and tortures a kid who's clearly mentally challenged by troll standards and then Hussie expects us to identify with her?
That'd be like having Eridan killing his girlfriend because she rejected him and then Hussie trying to say "Oh man, feel the depths of Eridan's pain guys, isn't he just such an awesome character? Also, everything he touches turns to gold and everything that happened is because of him." Fortunately Andrew played that situation right and at least correctly identified Eridan's actions as actually douchey. The alternative would be, I dunno, some ludicrous anti-feminist message about how Feferi totally deserved to get axed because how dare she shoot him down or some shit.

...But really I'm just bitter because, despite all your speculation to the effect that "Vriska is going to die," I know for a fact that she will almost certainly not die. Andrew simply likes her too much, and his self-professed adoration for everything she does colors his script, which is the most disappointing thing about Vriska in Homestuck, more disappointing than Vriska's actual characterization by far.

And if she does, by some wacky esoteric fluke, happen to perish? Andrew will be sure to give her the most glorified death imaginable, the same kind of over-the-top dramatic sendoff that Tavros, Feferi, Kanaya, Equius, Nepeta and others will not receive. Because she's special. And apparently, despite crippling a kid and killing two trolls, we're clearly supposed to like Vriska, and her dialogue with John is intentionally manipulative by the author to try to force us to like her.

So no, I'm not against villainous characters, bullies, overpowered jerks, or sociopaths in fiction. I am against authors who show brazen favoritism in their work and let their own subjective preferences color actual plot developments to such an extent that other characters do not react realistically around her. Great authors create complex, multifaceted characters with strengths and weaknesses, but do not bend the very "rules of reality" to ensure that character has an uneven playing field.

Vriska isn't designed to be complicated or intriguing, she's designed to be the Ultimate Canon Sue. A tragic past? Check. Hopelessly "misunderstood?" Check. Absolved of her horrific misdeeds, while other characters who commit the exact same kinds of misdeeds are vilified and despised? Check. Unrealistically superior to everyone around her, and wielding unfathomable abilities? Check. Seemingly incapable of doing anything wrong? Check. Responsible for nearly everything that happens? Check. Given some ludicrous "character flaw" that really isn't a flaw at all, insofar as its only purpose is to ensure greater reader identification with her plight because it's just ssssooo tough to be a rejected by the guy you crippled and tormented? Check. Written in a painstakingly deliberate manner to maximize sympathy towards her, so that readers just might mistakenly applaud her in the end for "redeeming herself" through some uncharacteristic sacrifice or a love with John or some other bullshit? Fucking check.

I'm reasonably certain that's just about 90% of my least favorite traits and qualities in fictional characters right there, and it all sums Vriska perfectly.

...I'm not saying you're a terrible person for liking Vriska. Let's not go there. There's no need to. Liking or disliking a character is inherently subjective. My intent in this lengthy diatribe isn't to try to convince anyone.

I'm only saying that there are, in fact, objectively identifiable reasons to dislike Vriska, just like there are identifiable reasons to dislike any Homestuck character. That's what aggravates me about so many of the folks who defend Vriska with such passion on the MSPA forums. I don't mind them defending Vriska, or advancing objective arguments in her favor, which is akin to what many of you have done here. I do dislike the kind of subtext found in Krylo's comments to Fifth, though, that kind of holier than thou "you hate a character I like and have dared to sully this message board with your opinion, so allow me to pull some ad hominem out of my ass and insult your reading comprehension skills because you just don't get it." That's just stupid. Andrew isn't immune from criticism just because he's created a storyline or a character that you adore, and there's clearly criticisms to be made regarding his handling of Vriska, which you can choose to respectfully agree or disagree with, but which you should not prevent folks from making and debating.

[Krylo]

So you hate her because she is a thirteen year old girl version of David Xanatos?

[Bard The 5th LW]

It's all the shit she gets away with that pisses me off. It's like, here's a character who happens to be a completely dislikable jerk, and she's also the very TV Tropes definition of a Mary Sue, and she's wielding some form of indestructible plot armor, and she's single-handedly responsible for about eighty to ninety percent of Homestuck's plot, and Hussie wants us to pity her and empathize with her and has been extraordinarily over-defensive of her, to the point that it's clear that the author is advancing some sort of agenda with her every time she pops up in the story.

This is the point. He intentionally made her to be a divisive character. The fact that there is any debate about her is what Hussie wanted, he has even said so. These Mary Sue traits were also intentional.

He never really said he personally adores or supports what Virska does at all, she's is sort of meant to seem that way though at quite a few times.

edit: Also, the trolls will die. Sollux already predicted it long ago, so unless dreamselves/revivals count, then Vriska is going down.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by BardTheFifthLightWarrior

This is the point. He intentionally made her to be a divisive character. The fact that there is any debate about her is what Hussie wanted, he has even said so. These Mary Sue traits were also intentional.

...But why would Andrew Hussie intentionally want to create a bad character?

Because that's what you're really saying, there. Deliberately creating a Mary Sue isn't deliberately creating a character that's divisive, it's deliberately creating a character that is poorly written.

[Krylo]

P.S.

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

I'm only saying that there are, in fact, objectively identifiable reasons to dislike Vriska, just like there are identifiable reasons to dislike any Homestuck character. That's what aggravates me about so many of the folks who defend Vriska with such passion on the MSPA forums. I don't mind them defending Vriska, or advancing objective arguments in her favor, which is akin to what many of you have done here. I do dislike the kind of subtext found in Krylo's comments to Fifth, though, that kind of holier than thou "you hate a character I like and have dared to sully this message board with your opinion, so allow me to pull some ad hominem out of my ass and insult your reading comprehension skills because you just don't get it." That's just stupid. Andrew isn't immune from criticism just because he's created a storyline or a character that you adore, and there's clearly criticisms to be made regarding his handling of Vriska, which you can choose to respectfully agree or disagree with, but which you should not prevent folks from making and debating.

Like I said above, I wouldn't bother with the ad hominem, or even anything at all, if Fifth would stop being a dick about it and mentioning it every time Vriska does anything ever... or even when she's not done anything at all but someone mentions her name in the thread.

Edit: I mean, shit, do you see me leaping down Arch's throat for saying she's annoying, or yours for this whole big thing?

No. Because I don't care. I don't care if no one else likes her in the world. I find her amusing, and I don't generally care about fictional characters enough to defend them.

What I CARE about is Fifth's constant thread shitting.