#5: That Religious Character
Now, this is one I admittedly have a bias towards, but hear me out; I’ve always said that representation never really was an issue for me. It never really bothered me not seeing other people “like me” in media, especially as I usually read sci-fi and fantasy. Nobody expects Poles or Ukrainians fighting dragons in a fantasy world, after all. If we needed people “like us” to enjoy a story, Redwall, a series about sentient animals in the middle ages would never have inspired me as much as it did. What I will say regarding representation though is that if you do decide to include a character who’s race/sex/creed plays a fairly important part in their personality, you should probably do it justice.
That brings me to That Religious Character™. If a character shows up in modern media and they have an Abrahamic religion as part of their character (especially if they’re Christian, it seems Jews and Muslims don’t get razzed on as much), you can expect one of three flavours;
The Child of God: They’ve somehow made it this far in life always staying on the sunny side of the street. They still believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, they believe the answer to any problem that presents itself to them is to break out in prayer, and they carry themselves with the serene enlightenment of naivete and inexperience. These characters usually end up in a crisis of faith once the first terrible event in the story occurs, asking the most debated and answered question in all theology (if God real, why bad stuff?) as if it’s some fresh take.
The Bible-Thumper: Usually older, male, and Caucasian (although female variations do exist, usually a literal grandmother), these characters hate everything; If you breath, you’re a depraved sinner, and they won’t hesitate to tell you. Usually quick to violence, prejudice, and deceit, these characters naturally have to have an abysmally low IQ, and no redeeming features to give them any semblance of humanity. These pure, shrieking clouds of “religious” rage will usually die horribly, or be humiliated publicly, cast out to gnaw on their own liver.
The Redneck: If there’s one thing that goes hand-in-hand with the classic Southern American trope, it’s uneducated, gun-toting, homeschooled Christians without three brain cells to scrape together between their families of 10+. They may be “quaint heroes” in the story, they may be comedic relief, they may get mixed up with a little “fire of the Lord” and end up as villains, but they’re the same trope at heart.
If the character doesn’t fall into one of the above three categories, I can only assume A: their religion is a minor point, not included in their character as more than a trivial detail, or B: the movie is literally a religious film, and religious folks are its target audience (these have their own problems, but that’s a different matter entirely). Now, I may not be the most creative writer, but the fact that this 3-point, two-footnote list covered every character I could think of that was in any way Christian just strikes me as lazy writing.
#4: “If I Don’t, I’ll Die!”
This one needs some context. There are plenty of shows I can name (mainly anime, because I don’t watch TV) that have a similar plot; outcasts of society deal with an oppressive majority that wants them gone while they struggle to stick to their lifestyle because, as above, they’ll die if they don’t. Examples include Shiki, Tokyo Ghoul, and sometimes even superhero shows like X-Men and MHA. Now, by itself, this isn’t a huge issue to me. What bothers me however, is this portrayal becomes synonymous with certain individuals in society who, rightly or wrongly, feel a similar oppression. This ties into the “we live in a society” idea that the one is more important than the whole, and society must bend to the individual, and not vice versa.
Now, this is an interesting philosophical debate which I don’t intend to start; the issue is they don’t set the playing field fairly, which is important when showcasing a philosophical conundrum in writing. There is not one choice I could make in this life that I have to hold to at the cost of my life (which the exception of heavy drinking, you can literally die from going cold turkey). Any other creed, addiction, or life choice, I could immediately renounce at no risk to myself. In other words, we hold ourselves prisoner, nobody else (I’m not saying by any means that breaking an addiction is easy, just that it isn’t fatal). This false comparison paints the forces of opposition in the story in a demonic light, as by depriving the oppressed of their lifestyle, they are literally killing them, as opposed to proposing a different path.
To me, that’s again just lazy writing. The gist of good conflict is to make both sides partially right, and base it on a realistic playing field. But when you artificially inject motivation like that into one side, it throws everything off. What could’ve been a group of partially justified people trying to uphold societal balance, even at the cost of conformity from the few, instantly become deranged sociopaths who will literally race towards the utter demise of the outliers, counting their lives as nothing. By extension, no matter what the other side does, no matter what depravity they commit, they are seen as justified, tragic characters fighting against their own extinction. The trouble with all this is that is takes what could be a clash of morally-grey characters, all of whom are half-right, half-wrong, and turns it into the simplest tale of evil oppressors and saintly oppressed fighting for their lives. The perfect antidote to this is, again, Demon Slayer. We are told that demons need the blood of humans to live, and so they must kill. And yet, Nezuko breaks out of her dependency though sheer force of will, “overcoming her addiction” as it were in one of the strongest, most powerful triumphs of human will over nature since the movie Gattaca. Because once again, no matter what choice you make, no matter what creed you follow, it will not cost you your life to change it. I swear, I could learn so much as an author from Koyoharu Gotouge.
#3: Triumph of the Emotion
What ever happened to stories teaching us to make hard choices and live with the consequences, teaching us that flying into emotional fits and “following your gut” leads to disaster, and more often than not, villainy? What really grinds my gears as a writer is when stories reward emotionally underdeveloped characters that make childish decisions, as the script bends over backwards to make sure things work out for them regardless.
A classic example of this is when in The Last Jedi, Finn is about to fly his ship into the laser battering ram in a moment of noble sacrifice to buy the rebels time to escape…and Rose crashes her ship into his to save him, out of her own attachment to him. Then what happens? Luke’s force-hologram shows up to delay the First Order for the two minutes it apparently took to evacuate the rest of the rebels, and woo, everyone’s saved. Except, there was no logical way to know that Luke would show up, and if a couple minutes was all they needed, Finn’s sacrifice would’ve well bought them that. And yet, the noble, rational sacrifice is undermined, and the script contorts to cover its own holes.
On the other hand, we have an example from The Long Patrol, one of Brian Jacques’ Redwall stories (intended for children as young as 9 years old, I might add). After a desperate espionage attempt into the enemy’s camp ending in the party fleeing for their lives as their enemy arms themselves and gives chase, Rockjaw Grang the Northerner ends up taking a thrown spear to his side in place of one of his friends. Then, knowing that he can’t run in this state, he makes a final stand, buying time for the rest to escape and even taking vengeance for one of his fallen friends with the very spear that pierced him. Now, Brian Jacques could’ve created a Last Jedi-level Deus Ex Machina. Maybe his friends stopped him and tried to carry him with them, as a new ally somehow emerged and held up the horde in his place. But he knew that would cheapen the moment, and that life wasn’t like that. By letting Grang die like a hero, he made the story both more emotional and more realistic. I miss stories like that.
#2: “Excuse Me, is There an Adult Present?”
This goes hand in hand with the previous point; somehow, in the span of a couple decades, we went from stories about children and young adults acting like grown men and women to grown men and women acting like children and young adults. The easiest example of course is old Star Trek to new Star Trek. Just look up Data explaining to Wolf how to be second in command; it’s a classic piece of dialogue between reasonable adults in a military position. Wolf publicly criticizes Data on his choices while he acts in a position of second in command, so Data takes him aside in private and sternly advises him to not question a superior officer in front of the crew. This exchange ends with Wolf swallowing his pride and admitting his mistake, and the two men leaving as friends again. In contrast, the new Star Trek is filled with drama and emotion, completely unbefitting of people with the kind of training those on the Enterprise supposedly had. Another classic example of disobedience of a superior done right is Crimson Tide, but we won’t get into that.
I guess, it disappoints me immeasurably when I can get more sensible representations of adults from manga and Jacques’ stories (both of which are aimed at teens and younger) than I can in modern media. There’s a reason people write stories about kids; you don’t expect Harry Potter, Katniss Everdeen, or anyone in Lord of the Flies to act rationally. But I sure as heck expect that if you’re showing me a film about a bunch of highly trained, specialized adults, they’re going to be behaving like it.
#1: Rubber Conviction
And here it is, my top most hated trope, the one so bad I actually designed a whole story just to undermine it (I haven’t actually started writing it yet, don’t worry). This concerns the character that is driven by a purpose larger than themselves. It could be something ethereal like justice or peace. It could be a religion or creed. It could even be just a promise or vow. The character is usually portrayed as a firm proponent of this purpose; it’s what they live for, and their character’s driving focus in the story.
And then, something changes. The most common example is their friend/lover/family member becomes/always was the thing they despised and were fighting against. Sometimes they end up as it themselves. Now, there are three paths for our character from here;
A: The mushy path. Now that somebody close to them has “opened their eyes”, they “see the folly of their ways”, renounce their black and white thinking, and go on a path of redemption. A bit cliché, but it works.
B: The absolute bad@$$ path. They double down. It doesn’t matter who it is, they’ll stick to their guns. They realize an ideal is more important than an individual, and they continue on their path, more resolute than ever. This usually leads to a villain’s arc, but by golly it still sends shivers down my spine. There’s always something appealing about someone who sticks to their guns, come what may.
C: The s*** writing path. This is where the characters says “Eh, I still believe what I believe, but this is an exception”. This destroys your character. They’re not an emotional character that sees their wrongs and repents. They’re not a pragmatic idealist that is willing to go to any lengths to see their cause through to the end. They’re just a hypocrite.
Option C is what happened to Copen, the antihero/deuteragonist/rival in Azure Striker Gunvolt, one of my favourite platformers. In a world where Adepts (mutants) are rapidly taking over the world, a young scientist whose father was killed by Adepts seeks to kill every Adept to protect humanity. He realizes that humanity is inferior, and if they don’t kill them off first, humanity will die out. Guess what? He’s right! In the 3rd game, humanity has all but been annihilated by the vastly superior Adepts, and he has to fight day in and out to keep a small group of human kids from being eradicated. However, in the 2nd game, it was revealed that his infirmed younger sister, the girl he was fighting to protect all the time, the reason for his living was an Adept too. So what does he do?
Nothing. Not a darn thing. He basically says “this is this, that is that”, and goes back to serial-killing Adepts while his kid sister has an ordinary life at school.
I’m gonna be honest, that ruined his character for me. And this is just one example, the one that hit me hardest because I love the games (the gameplay still rocks, regardless). That’s why this one sits at the top of my list; the worst thing you can do to a character is to make them a hypocrite. You don’t just destroy the emotional impact of their choice, you destroy their entire character’s motivation.