Sara, Los Angeles, any pronouns. At any given moment I am probably Andrew Garfield's age. Here on and off as the hyperfixations dictate. Tags of interest (?): my fic, my fannish posts, posts about me. I like to chit-chat, let's be pals. Check out my vintage clothing shop Sara Louise Vintage, and follow the shop blog and Instagram! Other places to find me: AO3 | Bluesky | Twitter | behind you!!!
A few recent favorites from my shop Sara Louise Vintage 😊 I offer sizes XXS-XXXL, just search the shop for your size and relevant items will come up! (Direct links for items pictured: 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8.) You can use code TUMBLR at checkout for 15% off any order, thank you for checking it out if you do 💘
When The Writers Botch The Protagonists’ Internal Conflicts
A lesson in internal conflict and how overlooking it breaks both your main characters and your story, featuring Stranger Things
⭐️♥️🌈
Every well-written main character goes on a journey in their narrative, and at the heart of this character arc is an internal conflict: the push and pull between what the character wants and the fears and lies stopping them from getting what they want.
Internal conflict, especially for multiple characters, can be tricky to pull off, but it’s what makes characters relatable. To everyone. We all have desires, fears, and misbeliefs about the world or ourselves that stop us from going after our desires.
Internal conflict is The Clash between desire & fear.
The average story is able to create payoff with the main character’s conflict, having them (and in turn, the audience) learn something along the way.
But when you decenter the emotional arcs of your main characters, or steer those arcs off their trajectory, the entire story falls flat and the audience walks away learning nothing from your story.
What Is Internal Conflict & How Does It Work?
Internal conflict is made up of 3 ingredients:
Desire: What the character wants most at this point in their life
Fear: What the character is afraid of
Misbelief: The lie holding a character back, which they are often oblivious to until they confront their fear in their aha moment. It is then that they realize “I’ve had it all wrong.”
The protagonist’s misbelief is, ideally, written as the opposite of the story’s theme.
Why is that important?
Because when the main character has their “aha moment”, the audience has an aha moment of their own. They identify their own misbeliefs and apply the moral of the story to their own lives.
So, let’s apply internal conflict to Buddy The Elf.
Desire: Buddy wants to find belonging, to find the place where he “fits in”. When he finds out he’s not actually an elf, Buddy hopes to find his real family, where he belongs.
Fear: Buddy is afraid that his family will reject him.
Misbelief: “I am an oddball, there is no place where I belong, and my real family doesn’t want me.”
Buddy's misbelief is challenged during his "aha moment" when the real Santa arrives, and he realizes his Christmas cheer IS valuable after all. Once Buddy challenges his misbelief, his family accepts him. Buddy gets what he’s been shown to want the most over the course of the film. That's the payoff for overcoming his fears.
Now, let’s apply this to the protagonists of Stranger Things to show what happens when internal conflict is ignored and the audience is scammed out of an emotional payoff.
By protagonists, I mean these sweethearts:
Will Byers ⭐️
I think it’s safe to say that love defines the character of Will Byers more than anything. Love separates Will from Henry Creel, who he foils. Unlike Henry, Will has a loving family and friends, who are key to Will snapping out of possession in Season 2 and honing his powers in Season 5. Internal conflict arises for Will when romantic love enters the picture, something which *sigh* Henry has and Will doesn’t. Platonic love defeats romance, yay! Except Lumax, Lumax is the most powerful ever!!
Anyways, Will’s internal conflict in the later seasons is set up around romantic love, and the shame he has around it because of his queerness and trauma from (CSA coded) abuse. This shame around romance is something I expected Will to overcome, because he also has a desire for romance that is so pure and inseparable from his queerness arc. I explain how Will is written to be a romantic hero here.
Will’s Internal Conflict
Desire: To be loved by someone who doesn’t see him as fragile/weak or a mistake, to be loved for exactly who he is, and to find romantic love like his friends.
Fear: That he really is a freak, a mistake, and that nobody will love him if they knew the truth about his queerness. That he will never find love because he is gay and because of the trauma he experienced, because he is outcasted.
Misbelief: “I’m not gonna fall in love, I don’t deserve love, because of who I intrinsically am.”
Misbelief stated:
How Will’s misbelief should have been handled: Will should’ve been shown that he is deserving of the romantic love he wants. And Will wants Mike up until the end.
Will should’ve realized that his desire to fall in love was a GOOD thing, not a BAD thing. His love should’ve overcome his fear and shame.
Will’s misbelief is that he doesn’t deserve Mike; he squashes his feelings for Mike down time after time. Will should’ve been shown that he DOES deserve Mike, the boy who sees him for exactly who he is.
Will’s ideal aha moment would involve him realizing that Mike does love him, and that Mike’s love gives him the courage to fight on, to stand up to the fear Vecna has been instilling in him.
The theme shown to the audience would be that love overcomes fear, and that queer kids, abused kids, too, can have the romantic love they desire.
If the point was to show that Mike made Will feel bad about himself, they didn’t give Will an alternative love interest who made him feel better about himself. This is what happens in The Holiday, where Kate Winslet’s character is in love with a man who strings her along, but then Jack Black’s character is introduced as a better match for her.
Again, it’s fine if Mike wasn’t the right person for Will, but there wasn’t another person for Will.
You don’t just write a character to want romance and… not give them romance. In Will’s case, that’s homophobic, actually.
What the writers did instead: They portrayed Will’s desire for romance as a weakness he had to overcome.
Characters can have misbelief-based desires (for example, a character who wants wealth or success), but if the protagonist’s desire is misbelief-driven, the pursuit of it is usually shown to hurt the characters around them.
For example, in A Christmas Carol, Scrooge’s desire for wealth is lamented by the townspeople, and his work partner Bob Marley warns him against it.
By contrast, Will’s pursuit of Mike is shown to be a net positive - for both Mike and Will. Will’s love, expressed through the painting he gives Mike, encourages Mike to be brave. It results in Mike’s growth as a character, as well as Mike and Will’s bond repairing.
Desires that are portrayed as good should be achieved by the character in an emotional payoff.
What the writers did instead: They set Will on the exact character arc Robin has been on.
Why this doesn’t work:
Robin didn’t work at Scoops Ahoy with Tammy Thompson.
Romantic love has always been decentered from Robin’s character arc, which is about acceptance and community. Even when Robin pursues Vickie in season 4, a lot of focus is put on her friendship with Steve and how that gives her the confidence to show Vickie her interest.
“But Steve was paired with Robin for all of Season 3, and he had a crush on her. They didn’t end up together.”
Steve’s crush on Robin was resolved by the end of the season.
If the California plot was supposed to be Scoops Troop 2.0, there was no bathroom scene.
If Byler was meant to be unrequited, it should have been a hard no by the end of Season 4.
Instead of addressing Will’s crush on Mike and “ripping off the band-aid”, the show set up Mike and Will to grow closer together in Season 5.
This is a very different approach to the other unrequited love plot lines in Stranger Things, which are resolved in one season.
Jane Hopper 🌈
Jane/El’s arc centers around finding family, connection, and belonging after being abused, as well as taking your power back (literally) from your abusers.
She finds the most solace in Hopper, her adoptive dad, Max, her best friend, and Kali, her lab “sister”.
I know some of y’all are going to say she finds solace in Mike, but he is shown to cause her more grief than happiness from Season 3 onwards. She explicitly tries to end the relationship twice because, in her own words, Mike 1. lies to her and 2. doesn’t understand her.
Mike is security, stability, the boy Jane falls back on because she grew attached to him first. Her internal conflict works best if it ends in her growing away from Mike.
Jane’s Internal Conflict
Desire: To find her family, learn about the world, and live a happy life free from the lab.
Fear: That she cannot break away from the lab or end the cycle of abuse she was subjected to. That she will never adapt or be accepted in the real world.
Misbelief: “I do not belong. Anywhere. I am a monster, and I am not cut out for a normal life.”
Also, “I need the validation of others, of men, to be worthy of love.”
And perhaps “I need to ‘adapt’ and live a normal life to be happy.”
Misbelief stated:
How Jane’s misbelief should have been handled: Jane’s arc in Season 4 should’ve continued as it was set up when she stood up to Papa. She should’ve been shown that external validation was never the answer.
Yes, this external validation she is misguidedly seeking includes asking Mike to tell her “I love you”.
If Mike was supposed to be a good thing in Jane’s life, they should not have written him to use the same language as her abusers (ex. “What did you do?”), and he should’ve made her happy instead of stressed.
Kali’s return gives Jane another option, taking her own life by choice, but this option is contrary to Jane’s desire for belonging.
In order for her misbelief to be proven wrong, Jane had to realize that she DOES belong, somewhere.
If Jane’s misbelief is “I have to adapt, to be a normal girl”, she should’ve been shown that she belongs and can be happy in spite of her powers and past. That these things, in fact, made her lovable.
Jane’s ideal aha moment could go one of two ways.
A. Jane realizes that she never needed Mike, that she was happiest broken up with him. Then, out of her own free will, she chooses to stay with the Party and Hopper instead of risking her own life, because they are her family. Or she chooses to leave the Party, because she wants to be independent.
B. Jane realizes she belongs with Kali, and she discourages Kali from taking her own life.
She chooses to live a happy, independent life with Kali (who understands her situation) and leave the Party behind, and they use their presence to break the cycle.
The theme shown to the audience would be that connection and making your own choices is the right way to heal from abuse. Not romantic attachment, and not ending your life.
What the writers did instead: They portrayed Jane’s desire as something unattainable. They also showed that her fear and misbelief were true, she was right about her inability to belong in the real world.
Jane’s character arc was filler for the Duffers, who ultimately saw her as a prop and symbol whose purpose had to be fulfilled by dying.
They fridged her, letting her fear and misbelief stop her from ever being able to pursue her desire.
They did that instead of having Jane confront her fear and misbelief so that she could pursue her desire.
As with Will’s internal conflict, this is just showing the audience that “sometimes, you never get what you desire most in life”.
Mike Wheeler ♥️
Mike’s internal conflict is the hardest to pinpoint, because he doesn’t seem to have one at all. Mike Wheeler appears to be a cardboard, static character. In every season, he loves El, he’s El’s girlfriend, and he’s loyal to his friends.
Until Season 3, where you start seeing the cracks in Mike’s relationship with Jane, how it makes him insecure, how it causes him to push his friends away, especially Will.
Mike’s arc then becomes one of identity and insecurity. He loses himself, his role as the heart of the Party, in his relationship with Jane. The relationship feeds into Mike’s insecurities about himself, as he places Jane on a pedestal and reduces himself to a “nobody”.
Then Will comes around and tells him that’s not true… which WOULD be the perfect challenge to a misbelief that is barely explored at all.
Desire: To be a hero who can lead his friends to victory over the Upside Down; to hold his friend group together.
Fear: That growing up will tear his friend group apart; that he will lose the people he loves.
Misbelief: “I’m just some random nerd, a nobody. I can’t do anything to support my loved ones. In fact, I’m not important to them at all.”
Misbelief stated:
How Mike’s misbelief should’ve been handled: Mike should’ve realized that Will believed in the person he wanted to be all along; that Jane was holding him back from embracing his role as the “heart of the Party.”
Will told Mike that his value was in his words, his leadership, his heart, so he should’ve used that to help his friends fight.
Mike should’ve had to confront his fears and insecurities on his own. Instead, he barely lifted a finger in the supernatural plot.
Mike’s ideal aha moment would’ve happened after he feels like he’s lost both Jane and Will (disaster moment). This would’ve forced Mike to realize that he himself has value, outside of his loved ones, even when he can’t save his loved ones. Even better if Mike surprised the audience with depths they didn’t expect - Mike could learn to love all of himself, even the parts of himself he was afraid of.
The theme shown to the audience would be that you are lovable just as you are - you don’t have to be a hero or savior. And/or that accepting yourself makes you strong, gives you the courage to inspire others and fight on. What better ending for a “show about outcasts” than the “everyman” character accepting that he himself is an outcast, and finding power in that?
What the writers did instead: They had Jane tell Mike that he indeed is valuable to her, when the narrative did nothing to support this. When, in fact, Jane hindered Mike's character growth.
We were never shown WHY Jane loves Mike. “You understand me better than anyone”… point to three times in the show where that’s true. Where Mike “gets” Jane more than Hopper, Max, or Kali do.
We were, however, clearly told why Will loves Mike.
They reduced Mike to the boy Jane and Will love, when he should have faced his fears and misbelief independent of them.
They proved Mike’s fear, being separated from the Party and his loved ones, right. That’s exactly what happens at the very end when he loses Jane, with no arc of him learning to accept loss. He’s just miserable.
I think you can tell what I'm getting at here. Fear and misbelief win, because the "lesson" is "sometimes, things just don't work out."
Why Does This Matter?
Internal conflict isn’t just putting your characters on a journey, it’s the tool writers use to teach their audiences the themes of their story.
Letting a character’s fears and misbelief win is exactly how you “assassinate” that character.
By shooting down the emotional payoff of three main character arcs in Stranger Things, the audience does not learn anything about themselves by the time the credits roll.
It’s soulless and designed for passive viewing; happiness and comfort to weakly charm the masses. And the worst part is, Stranger Things had the potential to be a story that challenges what the audience thinks about themselves and about others.
It's bitter men sacrificing good storytelling in lieu of "you get what you get, and you don't pitch a fit."
Will “I’m not gonna fall in love” Byers never experiencing romantic love as the only main character in the show despite being in love for years.
Jane “I do not belong” Hopper sacrificing her own life leaving her found family because she believes she could never live a normal life.
Mike “I’m just some random nerd” Wheeler becoming a shadow of himself only existing in relation to the people he cares about the most that ultimately move on from him anyway.
The lover that couldn’t love. The daughter without a family. The hero without purpose. All dreamers living their nightmares with smiles on their faces.
This is diabolical writing… maybe it could’ve worked if it was supposed to be a tragedy but I think it’s clear that it’s not what they intended.
I am too tired to find it right now but when the scandal broke former White House intern Dmitri Krushnic wrote an op-ed for I think the Chicago Tribune, it was a major paper, in defense of Monica Lewinsky that said, essentially, "look, we all wanted to fuck Bill Clinton." And then later Mr. Krushnic became an actor, adopted the stage name Misha Collins, and was cast in the CW's Supernatural.
I really think everyone needs to truly internalize this:
Fictional characters are objects.
They are not people. You cannot "objectify" them, because they have no personhood to be deprived of. They have no humanity to be erased. You cannot "disrespect" them, because they are not real.
I know this has good intentions, so I will just add the "how you treat them, even as objects of fiction, can speak about your own character, be careful out there"
Your addition is actually completely antithetical to my message. It is literally the opposite of what I am conveying.
Stop telling people to encourage the cop inside their head.
How you treat fictional characters, given they are entirely objects of fiction, does NOT necessarily speak to your own character, and you do not need to be "careful".
It is not dangerous to imagine dark things happening to fictional characters. It does not mean you are secretly a bad person. It does not mean you unconsciously want to hurt people in real life. It is not a "slippery slope" to doing bad things to people in real life. You cannot damage your brain or turn yourself into a bad person by consuming "dark" fanfic.
I can write tentacle noncon of my favorite character all day long and be a fierce anti-sexual assault advocate in real life because what I do in my head is not the same thing as what I do in real life.
One way to get tasks done in the day is to make yourself a Chekhov's List. Put all of the things you have to do on a list, and now that they've been revealed they'll need to be completed by the afternoon (third act) and when you've completed something you can Chekov that task from the list
