Jump to content
Banner by ~ Ice Princess Silky

Examples of Character Development With Theory For Why They Occured


Ganondox

Recommended Posts

Like many people, I primary enjoy the show for it's characters. However, unlike many people, I see the characters as being for the most part static, not dynamic. Characters are developed to appear more round, not to change internally. For most the main characters, all the "development" is really just either flanderization, anti-flanderization, superficial changes to status quo, and the occasional continuity nod that doesn't really mean on an arc scale. Claims to real character development appear to be just seeing faces in the clouds, mistaking natural variation in character depiction with a goal-oriented change. As a side-effect of the properties of chance variation, people get enraged over the "loss" of character development that never occurred in the first place, which causes people with that attitude to irrationally hate later seasons based solely on the fact they came later. In order for real character development to actually occur, there needs to be character arcs, but the show is written in such a manner that it's really not possible for the writers to plan characters arcs. It's written season by season, so long-term planning is not possible, and even within a season it's hard to sustain a character arc due to that there is no real chronology for most the episodes in a season. They can really only coordinate one or two arcs a season, which results in no development for any of the main characters because they can't develop one main character and not another. We've gotten pseudo-arcs for some of the main characters, like Rainbow Dash and Rarity, but those weren't planned arcs, it was just writers latching onto desires the characters expressed, and as a result there was no actual character development coordinated with career changes. That being said, some characters HAVE developed in-spite of these limitations, and I'll explain who these characters are and what factors enabled them to develop. 

First, Twilight Sparkle is notable as being the only member of the mane six to experience real character development. This is due to her specialized role: she is THE protagonist. As a result, she is given pivotal moments that the rest of the mane six are denied, and more importantly she is also given different roles as the series progresses. In the very first two episodes, we saw her make significant progress. Being the pilot, she could be given a character arc that then established the status quo for the rest of the series. The rest of the mane six didn't experience any character development then though because they weren't the protagonists; at that point they barely had characters to develop. After that point though, character development couldn't really occur for any of the main cast because at that point they got trapped in the eternal status quo that is needed for main characters in an open-ended episodic series, especially one with many writers and a more comedic than dramatic tone. The only reason Twilight was able to escape that was because of roles she ended up getting put into as a result of arc episodes, which are the only episodes that can change status quo in a meaningful way. It's important to note it's not the episodes themselves that really provided character development, it's the change in roles. For example, being a princess made absolutely no difference for Twilight until the second half of season four. It appears there is very real lag in the writing process that prevents events from directing providing any character development, but once people started writing for Twilight as a princess rather than as a student, her character started to change. What I think caused the biggest change in Twilight's character though was the introduction of Starlight Glimmer, as it moved Twilight from the role of student to mentor, and thus being the most significant advancement in her ad-hoc character arc. And that brings us to our next character. 

Starlight Glimmer stands out as the only main character with an actual character arc, and thus she's had lots of meaningful development. I've said it before, but I think her introduction is by far the best change the series ever had. Because she was introduced later in the series, they had room to work with her that they didn't have with the mane six, and her addition allowed Twilight to progress as well. The fact they introduced her as a villain and changed her to a protagonist at the very end of the season both gave her significant development in Season 5 and forced her to continue to grow in Season 6. The main problem with Starlight Glimmer's arc though is that contrary to the claims of GlimGlam haters, they just didn't give her enough episodes in Season 6, which was their one chance to really develop her. They had to close her arc at the end of the season as that's how the show works, with the Season 7 opener merely acting as a capstone in response. Season 7 did a lot to make her a more rounded character, but it's only the appearance of her character than changed. If she was given as much attention in Season 6 as Season 7 than her arc would have run much smoother, but as it was it came across as ending way too fast. 

As mentioned last paragraph, reforming villains is one way to guarantee character development. Aside from Starlight Glimmer, the most prominent of these characters is Discord. As rough as Starlight Glimmer's arc was, Discord's was much worse due to the fact he didn't actually have an arc. He was never meant to be reformed, they just threw him in another episode because he was so popular. The end result is exactly one episode with any development, and it was extremely rushed. After that, he's just stagnated in his new character as jerk only restrained by his love for Fluttershy. He has gotten nerfed overtime due to the fact that having an omnipotent protagonist doesn't really work, but that's more flanderization than character development. I do credit the writer of Discordant Harmony for making Discord something other than a jerk for once, but time is probably going to tell thus that in the end that was just noise, not any permanent development. While there is numerous reformed antagonists, such as Diamond Tiara, Gilda, and Flim and Glam, the only one I recall whose played a major role since repemption is Trixie. Her conversion went much smoother than Discord's, and while she's also stagnated since her conversion arc ended, she's worked better subsequently. I credit this to the fact she's a much more minor character than Discord, which in turn makes it easier to adapt her into new roles. 

The last character that really comes to mind as developing is Maud Pie. Like with Trixie, I believe it is the fact that she is minor reoccurring that has allowed her to be developed. For example, the writers can't give the main six boyfriends, but it's safe to make such a change with Maud. I think a biggest factor though is a quirk in the way her character is handled. She's pretty much given only one episode per season, but in that one episode she is the central focus. As a result of only having to focus on one episode at a time, it's pretty easy to guide her into a particular direction that builds off from where she's already been, and they actually have the opportunity to make the changes needed to move her in that direction. Discord has a similar writing dynamic, but I think the difference is that the nature of Discord's character makes him very hard to work with, especially when all his growth was exhausted in one episode. Maud meanwhile was introduced later in the series, where she could be designed for this role rather than having it forced upon her. There wasn't really much to Maud at first, but that just the writers much more room to work with, and overtime she's grown into one of my characters. This heavily contrasts with the main six, who had lots of appeal from the start, and thus don't actually need development. If you're treating a story from an arc standpoint than character development is essential, but FiM isn't that sort of show. It's episodic series, where the appeal comes from seeing the same characters react differently in different situations rather than from seeing them change into new characters over time. Don't get me wrong, I love watching characters develop as plots unfold, but for that to be the focus we really need a different series with a very different writing process and a different narrative style. 

Off the top of my head, that's about it. I welcome any to challenge my conclusion that the main six lack character development, but if you agree I'd like to here the support as well. I'd also like to here any of characters you think I missed, or any alternative theories to the ones I proposed. 

  • Brohoof 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see too big of a need in character arcs. They're great and all, but I normally like to see characters just as they've always been, and the same goes for people. Just because they can change, doesn't mean they're going to, so we shouldn't be setting up expectations unless something truly significant happens.

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be an unpopular opinion, so don't hate me. I think Twilight Sparkle has had the most character development for one reason. She's the show's main mane character. It's all about Twilight's growth. Her friend's development will always be secondary to hers.

Like I said. This is only my opinion.

 

med_1448484750_image.jpg

  • Brohoof 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)

While I recognize that character progress in this show tends to be coincidental more than anything, I still perceive a fair bit of it in the first four seasons especially, and I think you're defining the term more specifically than I would. For instance, between the pilot and season 3, the way Rainbow Dash's episodes are organized gives the impression that she's learning to abandon her "cool" persona and become more openly humble. Similarly, Rarity becomes less concerned with her image and impressing high society between season 2 and season 4, and some of her season 2 episodes look a lot like a transitional phase with that in mind.

Twilight is a particularly good example of this in this period, as some of her rougher edges in the first season - the snark, the skepticism, even the sheer extent of anxiety - are increasingly diminished with each season, giving the impression that she's relaxed somewhat. Though that's a bad example, because I think this trend was a huge mistake.

Even if this is just the stars happening to align right, it's there and gives the show some additional depth. Sure, we can't get too mad that the show doesn't stick to this, but it's certainly there to appreciate, and later writers would do well to pick up on this. 

Edited by AlexanderThrond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just realized I was a dummy and forgot to include the Cutie Mark Crusaders. Their major development of course was them getting their cutie marks, which completely changed the role. They pulled this off by having a season arc which developed their new role, though it wasn’t very effective as they only had one episode developing this role before they got their mark. It would have been much more effective if it was a series wide arc rather than just for a season.  

1 hour ago, AlexanderThrond said:

While I recognize that character progress in this show tends to be coincidental more than anything, I still perceive a fair bit of it in the first four seasons especially, and I think you're defining the term more specifically than I would. For instance, between the pilot and season 3, the way Rainbow Dash's episodes are organized gives the impression that she's learning to abandon her "cool" persona and become more openly humble. Similarly, Rarity becomes less concerned with her image and impressing high society between season 2 and season 4, and some of her season 2 episodes look a lot like a transitional phase with that in mind.

Twilight is a particularly good example of this in this period, as some of her rougher edges in the first season - the snark, the skepticism, even the sheer extent of anxiety - are increasingly diminished with each season, giving the impression that she's relaxed somewhat. Though that's a bad example, because I think this trend was a huge mistake.

Even if this is just the stars happening to align right, it's there and gives the show some additional depth. Sure, we can't get too mad that the show doesn't stick to this, but it's certainly there to appreciate, and later writers would do well to pick up on this. 

I don’t think it’s entirely just chance variation, I think it’s the result of the characters growing blander overtime as a result of their nuances getting forgotten. I lump that in with Flanderization even if it’s technically different, either way it’s a character becoming less rounded over time. The coincidence was just that it happened along with them getting status updates, so it looks a bit like maturation, but if you look through it they really haven’t matured that much. With Twilight though I think it’s partially intentional, but I agree her older characterization was more interesting. 

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)
3 hours ago, Ganondox said:

I don’t think it’s entirely just chance variation, I think it’s the result of the characters growing blander overtime as a result of their nuances getting forgotten. I lump that in with Flanderization even if it’s technically different, either way it’s a character becoming less rounded over time. The coincidence was just that it happened along with them getting status updates, so it looks a bit like maturation, but if you look through it they really haven’t matured that much. With Twilight though I think it’s partially intentional, but I agree her older characterization was more interesting. 

The reduction in character nuances might be part of why seasons 4 and 5 felt so stale to me, though in parts of the former I felt that all that was lost were certain rough edges, which made the characters more charming in my book. Rarity is a particularly good example of this, as she generally seems a lot less self-centred starting in season 4. It's not so much that this corresponds to "status updates" as that they behave differently in ways which line up with the lessons from earlier episodes. The difference with Twilight, I would say, is that she lost most of her quirks in the process, and I began finding her insecurities much harder to connect to. 

I will aggree that the characters have generally grown blander since the early seasons, however, and by season 6 whatever veneer of maturation existed before is mostly gone. 

Also, I think you're conflating character development and plot progression too much. The CMC gaining their cutie marks is intrinsically linked to character development, but just getting symbols on their flanks isn't character development in and of itself. 

Edited by AlexanderThrond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)
1 hour ago, AlexanderThrond said:

The reduction in character nuances might be part of why seasons 4 and 5 felt so stale to me, though in parts of the former I felt that all that was lost were certain rough edges, which made the characters more charming in my book. Rarity is a particularly good example of this, as she generally seems a lot less self-centred starting in season 4. It's not so much that this corresponds to "status updates" as that they behave differently in ways which line up with the lessons from earlier episodes. The difference with Twilight, I would say, is that she lost most of her quirks in the process, and I began finding her insecurities much harder to connect to. 

I will aggree that the characters have generally grown blander since the early seasons, however, and by season 6 whatever veneer of maturation existed before is mostly gone. 

Also, I think you're conflating character development and plot progression too much. The CMC gaining their cutie marks is intrinsically linked to character development, but just getting symbols on their flanks isn't character development in and of itself. 

I think your approach to the change in portrayal is too fine grained, there simply isn’t enough episodes for such an approach to be statistically valid. Of a long period of time it makes sense to notice a very general change in characterization, but once you start talking about specific seasons it’s more likely just a coincidence based on what specific episodes happened to be in that season. I think it was just by chance that Rarity got some more sympathies portrayals in Season 4, and those stand out due to confirmation bias. Flanderization was definitely taking place all the way back on Season 2, it’s super obvious with Big Macintosh, who only recently started getting a personality beyond eeyup again. I actually found the show to start getting better again after  Season 4, but as I didn’t believe any character development was happening I wasn’t looking for it. I focused more on coherent stories than whether the characterization was supposedly good or bad.

I’m not confusing plot progression with character development at all. That paragraph with the cutie mark crusaders was supposed to be in the original post, I just forgot to add it. There I clarified that a change in role causes character development because the writer is forced to take the new role into account while writing for that character. The key thing to remember is the writing process is decentralized. Character development can only in response to something that’s going to restrict the ways the writers can write as planned character development is not a thing in these series and writers just write the characters as they seem them. The other area where you seem to be confused is my use of the term arcs. While I do also use the term arc to refer to certain plots that span episodes, if you google character development you’ll find that it’s actually just a synonym for character arc. A character arc and a plot arc are not the same thing, but they are interelated. Character development cannot exist without plot as otherwise there would be no means through which that the character could change. 

Edited by Ganondox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We often mistake character development as addition of any information about the character in question when it should actually imply a bigger change within the character itself. That said, Fluttershy conquering her anxiety or Dash deciding to stop being an a-hole fall under character growth as such development only upgrades these characters ... Or at least it should. Ignoring character growth without character development that would explain the regression is why people are angry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)
23 minutes ago, Goat-kun said:

We often mistake character development as addition of any information about the character in question when it should actually imply a bigger change within the character itself. That said, Fluttershy conquering her anxiety or Dash deciding to stop being an a-hole fall under character growth as such development only upgrades these characters ... Or at least it should. Ignoring character growth without character development that would explain the regression is why people are angry.

Neither of those things actually happened. All that happened to Fluttershy was she first got flanderized to the point of just being shy, then became utterly bland in response to fans complaining because they are incapable of telling the different between a learned skill and a personality trait. Only recently did the writers remember what made her interesting character in the first place and start reincorporating those traits. Rainbow Dash’s assholeness has always been highly variable, your are definitely one of those people who fell into the trap that I talked about in the very first paragraph. There was never regression as there was never any growth, I have seen no evidence for it. 

Edited by Ganondox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ganondox said:

Neither of those things actually happened. All that happened to Fluttershy was she first got flanderized to the point of just being shy, then became utterly bland in response to fans complaining because they are incapable of telling the different between a learned skill and a personality trait. Only recently did the writers remember what made her interesting character in the first place and start reincorporating those traits. Rainbow Dash’s assholeness has always been highly variable, your are definitely one of those people who fell into the trap that I talked about in the very first paragraph. There was never regression as there was never any growth.

Saying something doesn't make it true. Growth should not remove shyness or a-holedness from these characters. It should add to them. These ponies had lots of episodes that dealt with these traits and in those episodes it is implied that these characters have grown. What you are doing is merely giving the discarding of these episodes your own spin, and a very strange one at that as there was never an episode where Mane 5 members were not displaying their traits. The only exception is Twilight, but you've already covered that didn't you. Now, if your interpretation of Mane 5 throughout the seasons was true, then why would you claim that not displaying traits is development in one instance and not in the other? Yes, I am implying that you are aware that Twilight changed her behavior in a way you are describing in this rebuttal. She grew. You are free to call it all a mistake. Development and growth can both be written badly.

The one who fell into a trap was you. A trap known to amateur writers. You have assessed that stagnant attitudes of Mane 5 are due to lack of development, but you never knew that such characters can and did experience character growth. Not aware of this concept, one can easily claim that unpredictable variations randomly detached from other episodes are intentional. One could also erroneously claim that becoming more calm and composed is character development. Well, you can say that Starlight received character development, whatever good it did. Everything else deserves another look, wouldn't you agree?

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ganondox said:

I think your approach to the change in portrayal is too fine grained, there simply isn’t enough episodes for such an approach to be statistically valid. Of a long period of time it makes sense to notice a very general change in characterization, but once you start talking about specific seasons it’s more likely just a coincidence based on what specific episodes happened to be in that season. I think it was just by chance that Rarity got some more sympathies portrayals in Season 4, and those stand out due to confirmation bias. Flanderization was definitely taking place all the way back on Season 2, it’s super obvious with Big Macintosh, who only recently started getting a personality beyond eeyup again. I actually found the show to start getting better again after  Season 4, but as I didn’t believe any character development was happening I wasn’t looking for it. I focused more on coherent stories than whether the characterization was supposedly good or bad.

"Statistically valid"? Sure, this show doesn't have bolded, plot-anchored character arcs, but early on there are easily perceptible changes in how the characters behave. My argument with Rarity was that her behaviour in many episodes from the middle of the show seems appropriate for someone who has internalized the lessons seen earlier in the show. That's a sort of character development even if the show is hesitant to stick with it. I don't want to be rude, but maybe you're the one showing confirmation bias. 

I mentioned in my original reply that it's probably coincidence that certain episodes seem to line up in this way, and within the show's first few seasons there are definite exceptions to the trends I outlined above. Character development was an abstract ideal I looked for when I started watching this show, though nowadays I mostly just ask for novelty. I'm just saying that these alignments enhanced the show's early appeal for me, and that writers might better understand the characters if they considered them. The show's too inconsistent for the best ideas to stick, but I think you're blind if you don't see instances where the characters behave differently in ways which lines up with prior lessons. 

Seems "the show has gotten better in recent years" is the common opinion around these parts, but you won't hear it from me. 

3 hours ago, Ganondox said:

I’m not confusing plot progression with character development at all. That paragraph with the cutie mark crusaders was supposed to be in the original post, I just forgot to add it. There I clarified that a change in role causes character development because the writer is forced to take the new role into account while writing for that character. The key thing to remember is the writing process is decentralized. Character development can only in response to something that’s going to restrict the ways the writers can write as planned character development is not a thing in these series and writers just write the characters as they seem them. The other area where you seem to be confused is my use of the term arcs. While I do also use the term arc to refer to certain plots that span episodes, if you google character development you’ll find that it’s actually just a synonym for character arc. A character arc and a plot arc are not the same thing, but they are interelated. Character development cannot exist without plot as otherwise there would be no means through which that the character could change. 

Yes, but as I'm sure you understand, a change in material circumstances is not the same as the change in behaviour or worldview resulting from it, and I'm confused that you keep listing the changes in material circumstances as if they're character development. 

2 hours ago, Ganondox said:

All that happened to Fluttershy was she first got flanderized to the point of just being shy, then became utterly bland in response to fans complaining because they are incapable of telling the different between a learned skill and a personality trait. Only recently did the writers remember what made her interesting character in the first place and start reincorporating those traits.

Pardon? Fluttershy was not handled well in certain recent focus episodes, but by your own logic those don't dictate a trend for her behaviour, and several other episodes throughout the past three seasons - some of them focus episodes - retain her sweetness and empathy even when she's more shouty and assertive. Season 6's "Flutter Brutter" may be a good example of how character change in this show tends to be sudden and immediate, but there's still continuity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Goat-kun said:

Saying something doesn't make it true. Growth should not remove shyness or a-holedness from these characters. It should add to them. These ponies had lots of episodes that dealt with these traits and in those episodes it is implied that these characters have grown. What you are doing is merely giving the discarding of these episodes your own spin, and a very strange one at that as there was never an episode where Mane 5 members were not displaying their traits. The only exception is Twilight, but you've already covered that didn't you. Now, if your interpretation of Mane 5 throughout the seasons was true, then why would you claim that not displaying traits is development in one instance and not in the other? Yes, I am implying that you are aware that Twilight changed her behavior in a way you are describing in this rebuttal. She grew. You are free to call it all a mistake. Development and growth can both be written badly.

 

 

The one who fell into a trap was you. A trap known to amateur writers. You have assessed that stagnant attitudes of Mane 5 are due to lack of development, but you never knew that such characters can and did experience character growth. Not aware of this concept, one can easily claim that unpredictable variations randomly detached from other episodes are intentional. One could also erroneously claim that becoming more calm and composed is character development. Well, you can say that Starlight received character development, whatever good it did. Everything else deserves another look, wouldn't you agree?

 

I apologize if I misrepresented your argument, I had to read your post several times before I think I figured out what you are arguing. It does appears to be bit more sophisticated than I originally thought, but it's clear you're tackling this from a fundamentally different direction than I am. 

You're right, saying something doesn't make it true. That is why I asked for evidence, but you failed to provide any (to be fair though, it looks like I just failed to edit my comment to specify I wanted that before you responded). Your attitude about how the show ought to function does not correspond to how it actually functions. You can say the characters "grow" as a result of the events of the episode, but it makes absolutely no difference on the characterization as the episodes are all written independently from each other. Unlike a novel, this show has a very loose continuity by nature. What continuity it does have is very concrete, while characterization is quite abstract. You insist there is changes in characterization that relate to this "character growth", but I'm saying that aside from a few exceptions like Twilight those changes don't actually exist and their apparent existence is mainly just a psychological phenomenon, and you've done nothing to convince these changes actually do exist. All you've done is tell you me think they should exist. Burden of proof is on for you that specific exists in the show exists, not on me for proving the existence of pretty much the most fundamental psychological phenomenon (it's called apophenia if you want to read about it). If permeant character development exists in response to some specific event that then later got ignored, then it shouldn't be too hard to find an example. If I have a specific example, I then test whether the trend is statistically significant or not. 

I explicitly provided an explanation for why Twilight changed, but not the others, and I'm not going to repeat it. I very well may be wrong in stating that she already did change while the rest didn't, but I don't really care to try to prove it either way as if she did in fact change she's just a justified exception to the previously established rule of status quo. There are in fact ways to test my hypothesis using statistics, it's just very hard to do as the claims first need to be quantified, and it's extremely labor intensive to do it as a whole rather than for very specific claims, like Fluttershy overcoming her anxiety at the end of a certain episode. 

No, I'm not falling for any trap for amateur writers, I'm just describing what is actually happening rather than what people seem to think is happening. I'm willing to be you're actually the amateur writer, as not only does your writing fail to speak for itself (from a technical standpoint your posts tend to be poorly written), but you seem to be overlooking the fact that sort writing is desirable depends on what you're writing. If anything is the hallmark of professional writing, it's knowing that. The writers for the show are by definition professional, not amateur, and writing an episode for a show like Friendship is Magic has very different goals than someone writing a novel. FiMFlamFilosophy says similar things about why these trends are actually just artifacts of the writing process, and he actually does have experience with the industry. The main difference between our analyses is in what we expected to get out of the show, which led to me being more satisfied in the long term than him. If you can find a source saying the writing process functions more like your describe it than FiMFlamFilosophy does, then I'm all ears. 

You claim I was unaware of the concept of growth, but I don't know if that's the case or if it's just semantics, either way you didn't explain what you actually meant. I'm guessing this is how you're using the terms growth and development. However, I've never seen the distinction made anywhere in academics (though I may just be unaware as while I've studied creative writing a bit it's not one of my focus areas), and several of the notions he proposed appear to be wrong like his distinction between character and plot driven stories, so I'm taking it with a heavy grain of salt. If that is the definition you are using, here is my response. I'm approaching this as a scientist, not as a humanist. I'm describing what I see, not any sorts of ideals about the human condition. As far as I'm concerned, growth is either change, or it's not. If it's not, then you don't actually disagree with me and you're just arguing semantics and thus wasting my time. For all I know what you're calling character growth is just was I was describing as making a character more rounded, as those are the terms I'm familiar with from my studies. If it is change, than the distinction doesn't matter, as it was still covered by my model. In my model, a character's nature at a point in time is (roughly, don't take this abstraction too literally) a distribution of possible reactions, and change is an change in that distribution between one point in time and another. The quality or quantity of change doesn't matter, a change is a change. As far as my model is concerned, growth might just be a slow, continuous change rather than a discrete one. In that case, the distinction makes zero difference for my argument, as I'm claiming neither exist since I was already talking about the long term, while the difference only exists in the short term. The only difference it makes here is with the counter-argument, as it's much easier test for discrete character development than gradual character growth, especially when significant variation always exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, AlexanderThrond said:

"Statistically valid"? Sure, this show doesn't have bolded, plot-anchored character arcs, but early on there are easily perceptible changes in how the characters behave. My argument with Rarity was that her behaviour in many episodes from the middle of the show seems appropriate for someone who has internalized the lessons seen earlier in the show. That's a sort of character development even if the show is hesitant to stick with it. I don't want to be rude, but maybe you're the one showing confirmation bias. 

I mentioned in my original reply that it's probably coincidence that certain episodes seem to line up in this way, and within the show's first few seasons there are definite exceptions to the trends I outlined above. Character development was an abstract ideal I looked for when I started watching this show, though nowadays I mostly just ask for novelty. I'm just saying that these alignments enhanced the show's early appeal for me, and that writers might better understand the characters if they considered them. The show's too inconsistent for the best ideas to stick, but I think you're blind if you don't see instances where the characters behave differently in ways which lines up with prior lessons. 

Seems "the show has gotten better in recent years" is the common opinion around these parts, but you won't hear it from me. 

Yes, but as I'm sure you understand, a change in material circumstances is not the same as the change in behaviour or worldview resulting from it, and I'm confused that you keep listing the changes in material circumstances as if they're character development. 

Pardon? Fluttershy was not handled well in certain recent focus episodes, but by your own logic those don't dictate a trend for her behaviour, and several other episodes throughout the past three seasons - some of them focus episodes - retain her sweetness and empathy even when she's more shouty and assertive. Season 6's "Flutter Brutter" may be a good example of how character change in this show tends to be sudden and immediate, but there's still continuity. 

Here is what I mean by statistically valid. There is only four episodes in Season 4 that focused on Rarity, and one of them (For Whom the Sweetie Belle Toils) had Sweetie Belle as the protagonist so by nature of the conflict it made Rarity appear better than usual. Three episodes is not really much to draw a conclusion from as any pattern could easily just be the result of random variation. Next, just because you perceive a change, doesn't mean it actually exists. If you look at those three remaining episodes, two of them have Rarity acting like a selfish twat. To be fair, it's magical book that's causing her to be a selfish twat in Inspiration Manifestation, but she was just being a twat in Simple Ways. I'm guessing her portrayal wasn't actually as positive as you remember it being, and that's where confirmation bias comes in. The last Rarity episode to discuss from the season is Rarity Takes Manehattan. First, it's generally regarded as being one of the best Rarity episodes, so it's going to have a disproportional impact on how you see the season. Next, it's the first rather Rarity episode, so it's going to set your mind for all the subsequent episodes in the season. Finally, the moral of the episode related to Rarity being less self-centered, so it gives you something very specific to focus, even if subconsciously. As such, just the fact ONE episode exists is enough to explain why you had that perception once your factor in cognitive biases, and a sample of one is NEVER statistically significant. Here is the clicher though: Season 1 has Suited for Success. In that episode, she was actually significantly less self-centered than in Rarity Takes Manehattan as she was just sewing dresses her friends without any thought of reward, while she specifically had rewards in mind in Rarity Takes Manehattan and it's being spited for her generosity that drove the conflict. The evidence actually seems to suggest that Rarity might have been LESS self-centered in the past. When there is so many exceptions in such a small pool, the most likely explanation is the rule you see doesn't actually exist. For the record, I never perceived the change you claim is easily perceivable. I think this is partially due to the fact I was never focused much on that aspect, as Rarity wasn't a character I cared for as much, and that I'm probably genetically less predisposed to perceiving these sorts of patterns, some interesting research was done on that. You however explicitly mentioned that character development was something you looked for in the show at first, so that means you admit not only to being susceptible to confirmation bias when it comes recognizing character development, but actively engaging in it.

Characters don't internalize lessons. They are characters, not people. They can only act like they internalized the lesson if the writer goes out of the way to write them with that lesson in mind. That's not what happens though, it's way too much of burden for the writers in this type of the show for a variety of reasons, some of which I've already mentioned. You literally need character arcs to have character development as it's part of the definition of the term. You can have an unplanned character arc (though I don't recommend it), but without an arc it's just variations in behavior. Sometimes writers do make nods to previously established lessons, but that's the writer acting independently. The fact you are animizing characters in a such a manner makes you much more susceptible to the previously mentioned biases, but really SHOULD animize the characters as that's the entire point of having them in the first place. This is just one of many areas where the writing process damages the illusion, but by not making unrealistic expectations from the cartoon you can get better immersed in it. One way around it is treating the characters like they have grown, but using this growth to restrict how they may behave in an episode. 

"I think you're blind if you don't see instances where the characters behave differently in ways which lines up with prior lessons. " No, I can definitely see it, I just realize that it doesn't imply what you think it implies. A lot of it is just a coincidence as that's extremely, but yes, OCCASIONALLY it's intentional. As I said before, sometimes writers make continuity nods that amount to nothing in the long run. The main point I'm making is the show has ALWAYS been inconsistent, and you acting like the quality of the show has decreased based on a logical error. I perceive the show as actually have gotten better recently, and I recognize I might be making an error (one bias in your favor is the fact that people who found the show to be decreasing in quality where more likely to have dropped out, and my personal opinion is a faulty reference as I'VE changed since the show started), but that doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with the argument being made here. 

A change in role is different from a change in material circumstances. Nowhere did I list a change in material circumstances as a change in relationship, I'm mainly argued the OPPOSITE, such as with Rainbow Dash and Rarity. Noticed how I pointed out Twilight turning into a princess did NOT change her character, it only made a difference significantly later when characters started referring to her as princess. Rather, it was her teaching Starlight which resulted in the largest change in characterization. That's just a change in relationships, it has nothing do with material circumstances whatsoever ( well, unless you treat Starlight Glimmer as a material possession of Twilight :P). Most the changes I referred to where villains being reformed, which has much more to do with relationships than material circumstance. Your confusion seems to be based ENTIRELY on the CMC paragraph as you seem to be thinking I was basing the change on the physical acquisition of their cutie marks. I wasn't, I was basing it on the fact they moved from trying to get their own cutie marks to helping other ponies understand theres. I just didn't elaborate on all of that because unlike the original post I was typing it up on my phone rather than my computer, and I figured my intention was clear enough from context (as that's what their cutie marks represent). Apparently not. 

Contrary to the opinion of many people on the forum, I actually thought her characterization was decent in the episode I'm certain you are referring to (definitely not her best, but not her worst either), the biggest gaff in her characterization was not knowing much about sewing, which to be fair is an extremely obscure reference and points to the whole futility of this attitude. People seem to forget that it's been established since early in the series that Fluttershy was very much capable of being very mean, and that added a lot of depth to her. Of all the mane six she's actually probably the one who takes things too far the most often, plus she's acted parts before. However, I wasn't even referring to that episode. I'm sorry you're so myopic that you think recently means only the very last season. It's kinda funny, you assume I'm contradicting myself, but if you were to actually accept an interpretation consistent with what else I'd said, you'd realize you actually agreed with me. The main episode I had in mind was actually A Health of Information, with a couple other season 6 and 7 episodes also flirting by. That's the same time frame. The other bit of irony is that her becoming shouting and assertive isn't actually a character change, it was present back in Season 1. It's actually one of the aspects that was brought back from earlier seasons which was lost due to flanderization. No sudden changes there, just a variety in portrayals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ganondox said:

I apologize if I misrepresented your argument, I had to read your post several times before I think I figured out what you are arguing. It does appears to be bit more sophisticated than I originally thought, but it's clear you're tackling this from a fundamentally different direction than I am. 

You're right, saying something doesn't make it true. That is why I asked for evidence, but you failed to provide any (to be fair though, it looks like I just failed to edit my comment to specify I wanted that before you responded). Your attitude about how the show ought to function does not correspond to how it actually functions. You can say the characters "grow" as a result of the events of the episode, but it makes absolutely no difference on the characterization as the episodes are all written independently from each other. Unlike a novel, this show has a very loose continuity by nature. What continuity it does have is very concrete, while characterization is quite abstract. You insist there is changes in characterization that relate to this "character growth", but I'm saying that aside from a few exceptions like Twilight those changes don't actually exist and their apparent existence is mainly just a psychological phenomenon, and you've done nothing to convince these changes actually do exist. All you've done is tell you me think they should exist. Burden of proof is on for you that specific exists in the show exists, not on me for proving the existence of pretty much the most fundamental psychological phenomenon (it's called apophenia if you want to read about it). If permeant character development exists in response to some specific event that then later got ignored, then it shouldn't be too hard to find an example. If I have a specific example, I then test whether the trend is statistically significant or not. 

I explicitly provided an explanation for why Twilight changed, but not the others, and I'm not going to repeat it. I very well may be wrong in stating that she already did change while the rest didn't, but I don't really care to try to prove it either way as if she did in fact change she's just a justified exception to the previously established rule of status quo. There are in fact ways to test my hypothesis using statistics, it's just very hard to do as the claims first need to be quantified, and it's extremely labor intensive to do it as a whole rather than for very specific claims, like Fluttershy overcoming her anxiety at the end of a certain episode. 

No, I'm not falling for any trap for amateur writers, I'm just describing what is actually happening rather than what people seem to think is happening. I'm willing to be you're actually the amateur writer, as not only does your writing fail to speak for itself (from a technical standpoint your posts tend to be poorly written), but you seem to be overlooking the fact that sort writing is desirable depends on what you're writing. If anything is the hallmark of professional writing, it's knowing that. The writers for the show are by definition professional, not amateur, and writing an episode for a show like Friendship is Magic has very different goals than someone writing a novel. FiMFlamFilosophy says similar things about why these trends are actually just artifacts of the writing process, and he actually does have experience with the industry. The main difference between our analyses is in what we expected to get out of the show, which led to me being more satisfied in the long term than him. If you can find a source saying the writing process functions more like your describe it than FiMFlamFilosophy does, then I'm all ears. 

You claim I was unaware of the concept of growth, but I don't know if that's the case or if it's just semantics, either way you didn't explain what you actually meant. I'm guessing this is how you're using the terms growth and development. However, I've never seen the distinction made anywhere in academics (though I may just be unaware as while I've studied creative writing a bit it's not one of my focus areas), and several of the notions he proposed appear to be wrong like his distinction between character and plot driven stories, so I'm taking it with a heavy grain of salt. If that is the definition you are using, here is my response. I'm approaching this as a scientist, not as a humanist. I'm describing what I see, not any sorts of ideals about the human condition. As far as I'm concerned, growth is either change, or it's not. If it's not, then you don't actually disagree with me and you're just arguing semantics and thus wasting my time. For all I know what you're calling character growth is just was I was describing as making a character more rounded, as those are the terms I'm familiar with from my studies. If it is change, than the distinction doesn't matter, as it was still covered by my model. In my model, a character's nature at a point in time is (roughly, don't take this abstraction too literally) a distribution of possible reactions, and change is an change in that distribution between one point in time and another. The quality or quantity of change doesn't matter, a change is a change. As far as my model is concerned, growth might just be a slow, continuous change rather than a discrete one. In that case, the distinction makes zero difference for my argument, as I'm claiming neither exist since I was already talking about the long term, while the difference only exists in the short term. The only difference it makes here is with the counter-argument, as it's much easier test for discrete character development than gradual character growth, especially when significant variation always exists.

You are not describing what's happening. You are trying to explain it, and I'm being generous here as all this borders on blind attempt at justification.

 

Yes, I am an amateur. That does not make me wrong. If these professionals need you to explain what "they are actually doing" to viewers who cannot understand the unexpected variations of characters by just watching the show, then they have failed as professional writers. They have never given us any indication that the learning experience of Mane 5 within all of their episodes were not meant to change them in some way or another. They are doing lessons right? And they don't let ponies lead by example? That makes no sense at all.

 

Oh, and don't forget to buy his book :P

P.S: I do somewhat disagree with the second statement about character development. Showing that she has a mole on her butt shaped like George Washington's head should not be regarded as character development!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ganondox said:

Here is what I mean by statistically valid. There is only four episodes in Season 4 that focused on Rarity, and one of them (For Whom the Sweetie Belle Toils) had Sweetie Belle as the protagonist so by nature of the conflict it made Rarity appear better than usual. Three episodes is not really much to draw a conclusion from as any pattern could easily just be the result of random variation. Next, just because you perceive a change, doesn't mean it actually exists. If you look at those three remaining episodes, two of them have Rarity acting like a selfish twat. To be fair, it's magical book that's causing her to be a selfish twat in Inspiration Manifestation, but she was just being a twat in Simple Ways. I'm guessing her portrayal wasn't actually as positive as you remember it being, and that's where confirmation bias comes in. The last Rarity episode to discuss from the season is Rarity Takes Manehattan. First, it's generally regarded as being one of the best Rarity episodes, so it's going to have a disproportional impact on how you see the season. Next, it's the first rather Rarity episode, so it's going to set your mind for all the subsequent episodes in the season. Finally, the moral of the episode related to Rarity being less self-centered, so it gives you something very specific to focus, even if subconsciously. As such, just the fact ONE episode exists is enough to explain why you had that perception once your factor in cognitive biases, and a sample of one is NEVER statistically significant. Here is the clicher though: Season 1 has Suited for Success. In that episode, she was actually significantly less self-centered than in Rarity Takes Manehattan as she was just sewing dresses her friends without any thought of reward, while she specifically had rewards in mind in Rarity Takes Manehattan and it's being spited for her generosity that drove the conflict. The evidence actually seems to suggest that Rarity might have been LESS self-centered in the past. When there is so many exceptions in such a small pool, the most likely explanation is the rule you see doesn't actually exist. For the record, I never perceived the change you claim is easily perceivable. I think this is partially due to the fact I was never focused much on that aspect, as Rarity wasn't a character I cared for as much, and that I'm probably genetically less predisposed to perceiving these sorts of patterns, some interesting research was done on that. You however explicitly mentioned that character development was something you looked for in the show at first, so that means you admit not only to being susceptible to confirmation bias when it comes recognizing character development, but actively engaging in it.

If I actively engaged in it, it was because of those coincidental alignments I mentioned earlier. I know what you mean about character development not being a show-wide thing, and it's hard to argue that something the show has never presented consistently is an objective aspect of the show itself. In turn, it's hard to believe that "Rarity Takes Manehattan," which as far as I know was written before or while season 2 was airing, intentionally tried to invoke prior episodes starring Rarity. For a better example, I've always found season 2's "Dragon Quest" to align with prior morals, even though that's clearly impossible.

In this show, when certain character traits become absent for an extended period of time, that more reflects the priorities of the current writing team than any directive or focus on character growth. Rarity is mostly a case I see in retrospect, because my enjoyment of her increased significantly at some point following season 4, and the reduction in undesirable traits fits a narrative which could be formed by several of her starring episodes.

That Rarity, or for another example Rainbow Dash, could return to exhibiting certain traits more commonly later in the show certainly demonstrates your thesis, but the show's format means that the characters should hypothetically always be learning, and the fact that some middle and later episodes de-emphasized those traits in the first place might indicate that some writers attempted to keep that in mind. (haven't watched several episodes in a while, so I'm going to stop here.)

I don't complain about character continuity that often anymore, but these alignments generally enrich my enjoyment of the show, and when I do complain it's out of frustration that the show can't entrench them, and can't stick to character depictions I prefer. That's what I tend to see most often in complaints about character consistency, though I don't really think they're the most useful critiques of this show. Also, I'm somewhat skeptical of an empirical, scientific approach to critiquing art, given the subjectivity of all art forms, but that's neither here nor there. 

9 hours ago, Ganondox said:

Characters don't internalize lessons. They are characters, not people. They can only act like they internalized the lesson if the writer goes out of the way to write them with that lesson in mind. That's not what happens though, it's way too much of burden for the writers in this type of the show for a variety of reasons, some of which I've already mentioned. You literally need character arcs to have character development as it's part of the definition of the term. You can have an unplanned character arc (though I don't recommend it), but without an arc it's just variations in behavior. Sometimes writers do make nods to previously established lessons, but that's the writer acting independently. The fact you are animizing characters in a such a manner makes you much more susceptible to the previously mentioned biases, but really SHOULD animize the characters as that's the entire point of having them in the first place. This is just one of many areas where the writing process damages the illusion, but by not making unrealistic expectations from the cartoon you can get better immersed in it. One way around it is treating the characters like they have grown, but using this growth to restrict how they may behave in an episode. 

How you see the writing process doesn't really reflect what's actually on screen, and author intention is unimportant. Characters sometimes act differently in ways that resembles earlier lessons. I like that sometimes. 

I'm not entirely clear what you are talking about in that latter half. 

9 hours ago, Ganondox said:

"I think you're blind if you don't see instances where the characters behave differently in ways which lines up with prior lessons. " No, I can definitely see it, I just realize that it doesn't imply what you think it implies. A lot of it is just a coincidence as that's extremely, but yes, OCCASIONALLY it's intentional. As I said before, sometimes writers make continuity nods that amount to nothing in the long run. The main point I'm making is the show has ALWAYS been inconsistent, and you acting like the quality of the show has decreased based on a logical error. I perceive the show as actually have gotten better recently, and I recognize I might be making an error (one bias in your favor is the fact that people who found the show to be decreasing in quality where more likely to have dropped out, and my personal opinion is a faulty reference as I'VE changed since the show started), but that doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with the argument being made here. 

As an aside, issues in character development aren't really part of why I've been frustrated by later seasons. 

9 hours ago, Ganondox said:

A change in role is different from a change in material circumstances. Nowhere did I list a change in material circumstances as a change in relationship, I'm mainly argued the OPPOSITE, such as with Rainbow Dash and Rarity. Noticed how I pointed out Twilight turning into a princess did NOT change her character, it only made a difference significantly later when characters started referring to her as princess. Rather, it was her teaching Starlight which resulted in the largest change in characterization. That's just a change in relationships, it has nothing do with material circumstances whatsoever ( well, unless you treat Starlight Glimmer as a material possession of Twilight :P). Most the changes I referred to where villains being reformed, which has much more to do with relationships than material circumstance. Your confusion seems to be based ENTIRELY on the CMC paragraph as you seem to be thinking I was basing the change on the physical acquisition of their cutie marks. I wasn't, I was basing it on the fact they moved from trying to get their own cutie marks to helping other ponies understand theres. I just didn't elaborate on all of that because unlike the original post I was typing it up on my phone rather than my computer, and I figured my intention was clear enough from context (as that's what their cutie marks represent). Apparently not. 

I was arguing semantics so I'll stop wasting your time and concede here.

9 hours ago, Ganondox said:

Contrary to the opinion of many people on the forum, I actually thought her characterization was decent in the episode I'm certain you are referring to (definitely not her best, but not her worst either), the biggest gaff in her characterization was not knowing much about sewing, which to be fair is an extremely obscure reference and points to the whole futility of this attitude. People seem to forget that it's been established since early in the series that Fluttershy was very much capable of being very mean, and that added a lot of depth to her. Of all the mane six she's actually probably the one who takes things too far the most often, plus she's acted parts before. However, I wasn't even referring to that episode. I'm sorry you're so myopic that you think recently means only the very last season. It's kinda funny, you assume I'm contradicting myself, but if you were to actually accept an interpretation consistent with what else I'd said, you'd realize you actually agreed with me. The main episode I had in mind was actually A Health of Information, with a couple other season 6 and 7 episodes also flirting by. That's the same time frame. The other bit of irony is that her becoming shouting and assertive isn't actually a character change, it was present back in Season 1. It's actually one of the aspects that was brought back from earlier seasons which was lost due to flanderization. No sudden changes there, just a variety in portrayals. 

Okay, I jumped to conclusions too quickly; I don't quite understand your argument regarding Fluttershy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)
9 hours ago, Goat-kun said:

You are not describing what's happening. You are trying to explain it, and I'm being generous here as all this borders on blind attempt at justification.

 

 

 

Yes, I am an amateur. That does not make me wrong. If these professionals need you to explain what "they are actually doing" to viewers who cannot understand the unexpected variations of characters by just watching the show, then they have failed as professional writers. They have never given us any indication that the learning experience of Mane 5 within all of their episodes were not meant to change them in some way or another. They are doing lessons right? And they don't let ponies lead by example? That makes no sense at all.

 

 

 

Oh, and don't forget to buy his book :P

 

P.S: I do somewhat disagree with the second statement about character development. Showing that she has a mole on her butt shaped like George Washington's head should not be regarded as character development!

 

Nope. You clearly just have bad expectations, you want this to be one sort of show when it’s somethig else. The entire idea that different sorts of writing have different goals went completely over your head, you’re just repeating very basic things about novel writing. The fact is the typical viewer is not reading into the show as heavily as you are. For this sort of show, it’s actually works better if the main characters are static rather than dynamic due to the way they are used and what they represent. Since you decided to just be patronizing instead of actually respond to what I wrote (you’re not even talking about anything specific in the show anymore, you’re pretty much just saying it’s just bad at this point), I am so done with you. 

Edited by Ganondox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)
On 5/18/2018 at 10:29 AM, AlexanderThrond said:

If I actively engaged in it, it was because of those coincidental alignments I mentioned earlier. I know what you mean about character development not being a show-wide thing, and it's hard to argue that something the show has never presented consistently is an objective aspect of the show itself. In turn, it's hard to believe that "Rarity Takes Manehattan," which as far as I know was written before or while season 2 was airing, intentionally tried to invoke prior episodes starring Rarity. For a better example, I've always found season 2's "Dragon Quest" to align with prior morals, even though that's clearly impossible.

In this show, when certain character traits become absent for an extended period of time, that more reflects the priorities of the current writing team than any directive or focus on character growth. Rarity is mostly a case I see in retrospect, because my enjoyment of her increased significantly at some point following season 4, and the reduction in undesirable traits fits a narrative which could be formed by several of her starring episodes.

That Rarity, or for another example Rainbow Dash, could return to exhibiting certain traits more commonly later in the show certainly demonstrates your thesis, but the show's format means that the characters should hypothetically always be learning, and the fact that some middle and later episodes de-emphasized those traits in the first place might indicate that some writers attempted to keep that in mind. (haven't watched several episodes in a while, so I'm going to stop here.)

I don't complain about character continuity that often anymore, but these alignments generally enrich my enjoyment of the show, and when I do complain it's out of frustration that the show can't entrench them, and can't stick to character depictions I prefer. That's what I tend to see most often in complaints about character consistency, though I don't really think they're the most useful critiques of this show. Also, I'm somewhat skeptical of an empirical, scientific approach to critiquing art, given the subjectivity of all art forms, but that's neither here nor there. 

How you see the writing process doesn't really reflect what's actually on screen, and author intention is unimportant. Characters sometimes act differently in ways that resembles earlier lessons. I like that sometimes. 

I'm not entirely clear what you are talking about in that latter half. 

As an aside, issues in character development aren't really part of why I've been frustrated by later seasons. 

I was arguing semantics so I'll stop wasting your time and concede here.

Okay, I jumped to conclusions too quickly; I don't quite understand your argument regarding Fluttershy. 

So you seem to agree it’s mostly a coincidence, the main thing point you seem to be making is that you appreciate its coincidental existence anyway. That’s fine, I’m just trying to spare disappointment when it doesn’t. The perception of how the show was written does impact subjective impressions of it. So what I’m saying is it’s good to think of the characters as learning, but treating them like they must be different in a specific manner as a result of what they learned is an unrealistic expectation. 

Does author intent matter? Not really. However, what is there can only be the result of what was written. It’s a bit of a tautology, but the implication is that the writing process is important for the final result. While the end result can be interpreted in countless different ways and stands on its own in the end, that does not change the fact it had to come from somewhere, and where it came from impacted what it ended up being. 

With Fluttershy, the main thing is she came across as more passionate in early and later seasons, but not middle. It may just be a coincidence, but it could have also been a real change that I don’t group with character development. For it to be character development, the characterization has to be part of the narrative, but there are other things that can cause changes in characterization. Characters have a tendency to drift over time, because the authors internal model of the character changes over time. One important thing is the character is built in reference to what was already demonstrated. For the most part, I think the writers focus more on how the character’s challenges reflect who they are rather than what it makes them become, keeping them static, which is necessary for a loose series like FiM where if the characters were there is no coordinated direction for change, and thus making changes could lead to a mess. One unfortunate side effect of this though is it creates an echo chamber, which leads to flanderization as naturally some traits end up getting exaggerated to the expense of others. Anti-flanderizing is intentional changes in characterization to counter-act that. While in some cases it might qualify as character development, for the most part it appears unrelated to the narrative. 

PS: The scientific approach stuff is kinda a way of saying I’m open to changing my mind on this subject, if I’m provided with something concrete that I can’t argue with. I was also contrasting it with Goat-Kuns approach, which entails certain ideals. 

Edited by Ganondox
  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Join the herd!

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...