Zen & the Art of ‘Bad’ Characters
There is a difference between*:
a badly-made character;
a good character who is portrayed badly;
a character who is a bad person;
a character who is an antagonist/enemy or rival of the protagonist;
a character who is misunderstood.
– the first is a character whose overall construction is shoddy (see: many incidental/tertiary characters who get little screen time and whose roles are more or less reduced to tropes or plot delivery vehicles rather than fully-rounded individuals with agency and etc).
– the second is a character where someone’s (usually a creator’s) negative bias against people similar to that character is glaringly obvious (see: many female characters and characters of color, whose portrayals are influenced by their creators’ misogyny, racism, or some combination of the two).
– the third is a character who willfully chooses immoral actions (note the plural) that harm others, usually for their own selfish gain, where ‘survival’ is not necessarily considered a net gain. This is perhaps the most overly simplistic definition, I’ll admit, but please bear with me for the sake of the larger point I’m attempting to make here.
– the fourth is a relative and somewhat arbitrary narrative device, one which can be unpacked at greater length, but the gist is this:
[Protagonists] get the most screen time, the most character development and plotlines and nuance and basically are granted a fuller spectrum of humanity in their depiction. Their faults have greater context, and as such, the narrative (and the audience) is more likely to be forgiving of their errors.
– from “The ‘Spotlight Effect’ in Media & Fandom,” an essay I wrote some time ago.
or: all narrators are, in some sense, unreliable ones**. Every story has the potential to be told from multiple perspectives (think Rashomon, or any number of its retellings), and the author chooses which perspective(s) are the primary ones. The perspective(s) chosen are that of the protagonists, and their enemies/rivals/opponents are often the antagonists, but the story could be told in the reverse, or in another way.
Which is even more simply illustrated by the phrase: “everyone is the hero of their own story.”
– the fifth is a character whose perspective is not treated fairly by the text or whose actions are frequently misinterpreted by viewers/readers/etc, for one reason or another. This can be a subset of any of the other types, but I’m breaking it out here on its own because I’ve seen it discussed (and discussed it myself) as its own issue, and this whole post is about clarifying common methods of analysis.
These ‘types’ of ‘bad characters’ are non-exclusive, which means they can combine; characters can be any number of these, and sometimes all.
However, it’s important to note that all of these categories define a different type of value or Quality (or the lack thereof):
– the first discusses quality of narrative craftsmanship;
– the second is a result of flawed or inadequately self-aware creator perspective (often reflecting wider systemic cultural devaluation of certain types of people);
– the third is a lack of (pardon the loaded turn of phrase, but it’s precise in this instance) moral values on behalf of the character themself;
– the fourth is a choice made by the story’s author to value one perspective over another/others;
– and the fifth is the result of a character being inadequately valued by its creator or its viewers/readers/etc.
Why is this important?
Because the conflation of multiple types of ‘value’ in discussions can be counter-productive. One person may say that a character is bad, and be speaking of poor narrative craftsmanship, and someone will think they mean that the character is ‘the REAL antagonist of the story.’ One person may say that a character is ‘good,’ meaning that the character is ‘sympathetic,’ while someone else will take that as meaning ‘virtuous.’ And so on.
I think the takeaway is simply this (tl;dr):
Be sure you know what quality or kind of value is being discussed when talking to someone about whether a character is ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ Remember that a character lacking (or having) one form of ‘value’ does not automatically mean it lacks (or has) any (or all) of the others. And be aware that, like many things, value is often - though not always - a nuanced quality rather than a binary one.
* This list is, of course, non-exhaustive and very simplistic, but it should suffice for the point(s) I’m trying to make here.
** I’ve gotten shit for saying stuff like this before, but I still think it’s one of the most interesting points I’ve ever articulated, and if it needs its own (separate) discussion thread, I’m happy to make one.
