Salem & Ozma lover

My sideblog for rwde and rwby

[blukiar]

Haha I finally got something to post here! (after such a long time oof…)

Here’s a RWBY fanart of my fave villains Curious Cat and Mommy Salem~! I love the 2 beyond a normal amount and I would reeeaaallly love if they get to meet each other at some point!

I think they would have an amazing Partners in Crime dynamic, a hot evil Milf with her evil pet cat <3

[invested-in-your-future]

I can't overstate how off it feels that RWBY just basically dropped the discrimination subplot after Menagerie.

RWBY writing, barring some bits and pieces it will eventually ignore, treats the concept of discrimination as "in the past" and "solved". It essentially places the onus on the Faunus to "be model citizens" to be accepted. Whatever discrimination remains in Remnant is shown to merely be a perception problem and can be solved by someone like Yang delivering some stern words. The status quo has been achieved, and the issues of the past no longer matter.

It can't be overstated how much of a conservative point of view that is.

It essentially ignores the dynamics of oppression, not to mention the way social change actually happens within societies. It ignores how rigid stereotypes, prejudice, and superstition can be. It also ignores the rigidity of the legal framework of the world. It conveniently ignores that the progression of both would be uneven around the world. Or that the progress forward can be interrupted by social regression, too.

"You won now. So please stop fighting and also stop trying to protect yourselves from losing your rights", is a common argument used to erode civil rights in any society.

So why does the show push that angle? Why does the show ignore its own setup, like Mistral being more hostile to Faunus, Atlas having literal slavery mines, etc? Why does it minimize the discrimination into that one case of Velvet's bullying at school? Why does the show change Blake's backstory of suffering and prejudice into being a literal tropical resort princess who went off to do some social activism due to disagreement with her parents? Why does the show expect us to be appalled (and not cheering) at Ilia's reaction to people laughing at that mining accident described in that Blake character short? Why is Ilia's character arc literally just about learning to be a model minority? Why does the show have Blake deliver that awful, awful monologue in Menagerie?

A lot of questions, and I don't think I like the answers I can think of, as far as the show, its writers, and the narrative themes go.

[invested-in-your-future]

One of many reasons why I think Mistral should have been the time to really dive into Silver Eyes and the history behind them is because of Greek influences for that Kingdom.

Greek mythology leans heavily into the idea of predetermined fate. Whether it is destinies ascribed to humans by the gods' machinations, the mechanics of actual literal Fates or the way the plays would portray the said myths and the role of the chorus there, there is a lot that can be said about the very concept of inevitability.

Hell, even Pyrrha's last words are about destiny. Pyrrha, the Champion of Mistral, who perished from fate ascribed to the Greek Hero she is inspired by. And it was a question by another character hailing from Mistral.

Now, sure, Mistral isn't just Greek. It's also Nora's home. A character based on a god in Norse Mythology, another mythology heavily about predetermined fate. Oh yeah, it's also Ren's home. A character based upon a story where searching for agency and free will is the key. Chinese mythology is also pretty big on concept of fate or predetermined paths.

And then Adam also came from Mistral and left for Mistral, which means Blake also has ties to Mistral. Two characters representing Faunus fight for their rights.

It's almost like there's a bunch of characters connected to concepts of destiny and agency that all are supposed to converge upon this Kingdom!

And here's our protagonist. A girl obsessed with heroes and idolizing her mother as one. A girl with a legacy, as we found out at the end of V3. A girl questioning her worldview after what happened, feeling like she's always too late to change things, to save people.

And it's not just her. Blake should struggle with her inability to change things no matter which path she chose. Yang should struggle with her aimlessness and longing for that spark that drives her sister.

Why wouldn't such a protagonist and her friends deal with themes of fate, inevitability and free will when she comes into a Kingdom like that?

What is Destiny? What is fate and what is free will? Why not actually ask those questions in the Kingdom characters defined by them like Pyrrha and Cinder are from? Why not ask it in the Kingdom Raven escaped Ozpin in search of free will to?

It just baffles the show does basically nothing with such a crucial location that everything in the first three volumes was leading to. It seemed like a no-brainer direction to go with thematically and it's the first thing I decided about Mistral for the rewrite.

Because just thinking of what could have been still hurts.

In hindsight the way they handled Mistral should have been the show's canary in the coal mine.

[invested-in-your-future]

I just realized that RWBY doesn't really have any ethnic groups or at least ethnic groups besides asian, whites, and africans. I mean the writers have already clarified that Remnant isn't really a direct parallel to earth. But they could at least try, right?

I don't think the show does all that well with what it has used.

It's an issue with worldbuilding overall.

Like, for example. People of color exist. Why is Vale mostly white? Why is the entire main cast white? Why are the Kingdoms so homogeneous overall?

The dynamics we have in our world are primarily dictated by historical and social events. Things like natural disasters, wars, colonialism, slavery, and even the crusades have influenced the way our world is. It has directly impacted things like how various ethnicities have spread through the world, the poverty and technological states of various countries, etc.

Yet Vale is clearly western-coded, and Mistral, despite having been implied to be a mix of at least Eastern and Mediterranean cultures, is primarily eastern-coded. Hell, the core "foundation myth" the show retconed into the story can't escape the pseudo-evangelical coding either, down to judgment day, humanity being "incomplete", as well as incredibly annoying "born again" allegories in Volume 9. And now the "final confrontation" is set to be on the plains of a desert city as people who already live there are forced to "take in" displaced nation.

Even ignoring how somehow Remnant's social issues are limited to one kind of discrimination (which makes zero sense considering Atlas, Great War, Upper Class District in Vale, Cinder's backstory, SDC, a literal Robin Hood character, etc), the worldbuilding of Kingdoms and cultures there lacks coherence. If Remnant is not a direct parallel, what events would have influenced the dynamics there, then?

If there were none, then shouldn't the cast be more diverse overall? (This also applies to how heteronormative the show is for most of its run. Because if "there's no discrimination other than Faunus discrimination", then why is the world portrayed as so heternormative? Where's LGBTQ+ rep? Aroace characters? Pansexual? Bisexual? Trans rep beyond a fumbled allegory with Penny?) Shouldn't the Kingdoms truly be a mix of various cultures, beliefs, myths, and ethnicities, then? Shouldn't the writing do better than "Flynt Coal"?

Is there a reason within worldbuilding for that, or is there not?

It would also have been pretty easy to fix. Not to mention interesting to fix. Thinking through details like that provides storytelling opportunities.

One of the first things I have conveyed in my rewrite is that discrimination isn't always just about Faunus. Societies and communities shift their focus all the time. Atlas is defined by socioeconomic inequality, and the rich and powerful hold all the power there. Mistral is heavily classist and unable to let go of the past. And while people of Vale would proudly proclaim to be beyond such concepts, their own history had one of their kings ordering the destruction of another kingdom, painting them as convenient scapegoats due to the color of their skin. All that, as well as different histories of each Kingdom, influenced the social structures there. Likewise, the Faunus situation had a clear beginning from which the discriminatory dynamic evolved. All of those things can then become building blocks for plotlines and characterization.

So why does the canon ignore developing those worldbuilding elements? I think it's for the same reason they do nothing with the Great War, and why they kind of fumbled the Faunus subplot and the SDC subplot and Atlas and other things.

I think in a lot of ways, for the show, it's an issue of not having a consistent, professional, and diverse writers' room. Why is the show so heteronormative for most of its run? Why does it not have a more diverse cast of characters? Why does it not convey a truly diverse and unique world? Why does it fumble allegories like Penny, or write in problematic things like Ironwood's semblance and the entirety of Volume 9? Because it's written by a bunch of guys from Texas. A bunch of guys from Texas who likely couldn't perceive those issues or didn't care. A bunch of guys from Texas who didn't hire sensitivity readers or a proper writers' room, so nobody would point out those issues to them. A bunch of guys from Texas who are really bad at handling criticism constructively and would rather write a strawman of their critics as V9 villain, M.Night-Shyamalan style.

Or maybe it wasn't even a priority, just like many things the show could have delved into or done better. What was the priority then? Going by how the show is written—all the clickbait decisions like Penny revival, all the lack of progression and consequences, the inability to address the end of V3, character dynamics never evolving—the priority likely was to keep going for as long as they can and nothing else.

[unofficialadamtaurus]

Also like. Getting branded on the face & the child labour is only the abuse we are made aware of. Realistically, children in Adam’s situation go through abuse and horrors beyond one’s imagination. We see none of it cuz Adam’s backstory is not expanded on at all but realistically of course he’d be vengeful god knows what happened to him other than what we’ve been shown.

the more i think about all the implications of Adam's character the more i want to release a flock of pigeons into wherever the current writer's room is

[invested-in-your-future]

Have you seen Sheena's post about Cinder's og backstory, it's honestly the last thing I expected.

The whole thing about her being not just Cinderella but Medea and the whole motherhood thing?

Medea's story has multiple interpretations, some painting her as an unrepentant, vengeful, scorned wife, but the core of the story is far more complex, as even the narrative forgives her for her actions. She was a faithful and naive woman, manipulated (and outright mind-controlled by the gods to fall in love) into betraying her family, only to be thrown away by Jason.

It makes sense, honestly. Parts of Mistral are heavily Greek-inspired, and Cinder hails from there. It also fits the idea of "wronged person turning into revolutionary figure", which also fits the previous hints Sheena dropped about Cinder, even as early as Volume 2. It's why she is so judgmental towards Ozpin during V3.

I can see Pre-V4, Pre-Temu-Azula Cinder being someone who was wronged and manipulated by heroes, betrayed by "the good guys", possibly losing her child(ren). Imagine Medea's story as a direct continuation of Cinderella's happy ending? It fits. It's the fairy-tale happy-ever-after gone wrong.

Like, even when writing the rewrite, it seemed obvious to me that Cinder would be someone somehow "wronged" and that she (wrongly) saw herself as the righteous hero of the story, delivering vengeance upon the side that she saw as hypocrites.

That said, the whole children part could also be something they eventually decided to tone down, while keeping the rest of the characterization, which would make her more of a "wronged Cinderella" than outright Medea. It's also pretty clear they had no idea what to do with Cinder after V3, too.

It's all the more indication that Salem's backstory wasn't something they planned early on, as they clearly reused the "death of the children" aspect for her instead. Ozpin and Salem's backstory feels more and more like something barely cobbled together on the spot.

[cassandrarose]

I'm really not looking forward to Salem's 'Come to Treesus' moment

My main reason for hating the whole "Salem gets talked into going to the tree and gets a second chance at life" ending is how unfair that would be to her abuse victim Cinder, who is going to get a brutal spectacle of an ending (as well as to other villains like Adam and Ironwood, one of whom was also a victim of abuse and oppression and the other who started out good and lost his way).

My secondary reason for hating this ending to RWBY is that Salem has had too much good handed to her in life for her to be a sympathetic villainess. She was born a protected princess, she found her soulmate, she has magical powers, she became a queen, and she had 4 healthy children who loved her despite her monstrous form. Their deaths are her fault. With the exception of being locked in the tower and losing Ozma the first time around, every bad thing that happened to her was her fault.

I hate the idea of this ending so much that I hope the writers reveal that Salem already went to the tree after her children died and ascended into the monster she is today, confirming that ascension won't work for Salem.

[cassandrarose]

The other thing I hate about the way both Cinder and Salem are written: Men wrote them in such a way that lashing out against their abusers turned them evil and every bad thing that happens to them after their initial abuse as teenage girls is their fault

With the exception of Ozma dying, everything bad that happened to Salem after she escapes her father's tower is her fault. How are we supposed to empathize with a character like that? They've set Cinder up the same way, with the difference being that they don't want us to have empathy for her, but some of us end up having empathy for her anyway because unlike with Salem they forgot to include love in Cinder's life to balance out the negativity of the things that happened to her. Cinder is already set up so that everything from whatever happened to her as a homeless, unprotected teenage girl after escaping the glass unicorn, to her being found, groomed, experimented on, and exploited by Salem, to her disfigurement, to the brutal death Salem is going to directly or indirectly bring to her, are all her fault.

There's a similar problem in how they wrote Adam- they even made his branding his fault.

RWBY's message about abuse is iffy to say the least.

[invested-in-your-future]

Imagine having "a country tried to ban the very concept of self expression, emotions, and creativity, banning all art" in worldbuilding of something you made in the last two decades and, despite everything that happened, doing NOTHING with that.

Meanwhile you had time for "taking away everyone's guns is very bad and sign of authoritarianism actually" subplot. And for "Well having prosthesis makes you less human" subplot. And for "Neurodivergence is superpower that turns you evil" subplot. And "Well our robot character (that's totally not an allegory) can't be considered a REAL girl unless magic" subplot. And "having flaws is evil and the only way forward is the Unaliving Tea" subplot.

And for "PTSD is like fear of mice and if you don't pretend you are okay at all times then you are being selfish" subplot.

Truly strange how that works.

[invested-in-your-future]

I am kind of surprised at how much of an afterthought the fairytale allusions are in the show.

Like, let's ignore bad or problematic writing or the weird story direction MilesWBY went with for a second.

Why are most fairytale allusions post-V3 a complete afterthought?

Setting up breadcrumbs, priming a character to be a reference to another work? That's fun. It feels good to plan.

Just thinking how specific myths, fairytales, urban legends, literary characters, etc can be twisted or subverted to fit into a setting is fascinating.

Sometimes it can be obvious or sometimes it can be subtle.

And then those breadcrumbs finally lead somewhere, a bigger picture reveals itself and everything snaps into place. Everything becomes clear as day and you can go "ohhh so that's what that character is about".

V3 did a really good job with that in the case of Pyrrha and Penny, for example. Like or hate what happens, seeing the poetry weaved onto their fates and how what happens relates to their stories is fascinating and fun. Or V2 with Cinder mirroring Cinderella story beats during the dance?

Why are there so many examples in the show where a character is thrown in and then their fairytale allusion is something confirmed in, like a podcast, or a throw-away line???

Or in the case of V9 and Alice in Wonderland the writers basically pull a Zack Snyder and just pull the aesthetic with no care of what the story is actually about? Or Cinder's flashback episode which basically just regurgitates Cinderella story steps but without any thematic purpose or consequence?

Where are snow white themes and story beats in Weiss during Atlas story arc? Where's the beauty and the beast with Blake and lets assume Yang? Which part of Lie Ren story ties to Mulan? Which part of Nora's characterization ties to Thor? How about Jaune and Joan of arc? What part of Ozpin subplot lends itself to Wizard of Oz beyond him supposedly being a fraud (which logically shouldn't even matter and the characters blowing up at him still make zero sense)? Oh that's a monster from Pinocchio? Great how does that fit into the story? Oh it doesn't and you just threw it in as Deus ex machina? Okay. What's Red Riding Hood about Ruby Rose and who is the Big Bad Wolf that is trying to deceive her???

They wanted to do the dumb brother gods subplot? Great, their choice. I'll never understand why and I'll forever hate it but it's their show. That doesn't stop them from making better use of the whole concept of a contemporary world setting where characters are based upon fairytales.

Planning things is fun! Making things fit together is fun! So why not? Why not thoughtfully engage with the setting you are writing your story in?

One of the most exciting parts for me when writing the rewrite is how various fairytales and myths can tie together within the story, to discover how various story beats can mirror or parallel the ones within the tales.

It just confounds me that the actual creators of the franchise never seemed to want to truly engage with the concept.

[unofficialadamtaurus]

I watched rwby a very long time ago but there was this one scene that really left an impression on me. As I said, last time I saw the show wasn’t soon so I might not be remembering the exact words but I think it was when Blake was talking to Sun about Adam. She was associating people with words, and after she said that Adam was “spite”, she said that he wants revenge?on humanity for what he FEELS they have done to him. Which is such weird wording in my opinion. Like, it is obvious that here CRWBY is essentially using Blake as a mouthpiece because the wording is so manipulative. Basically, it dismisses Adam’s trauma as something that he *feels* has happened, rather than as something that definitely HAS happened.

There’s a difference between “Adam hates humanity because of what humanity has done to him” vs “Adam FEELS as if humanity has done him wrong and thus he hates humanity”.

Yeah I can't overlook the "spite" angle of it tho. Spite is inherently juvenile and immature. I'd absolutely write him as a spiteful person for small-scale moments but applying spite to the full breadth of his character, when he has incredibly clear reasons to be vindictive towards humanity, feels trivializing for sure. One is not "spiteful" about being branded on the face.

"Feels" is also just...yeah, ugh. If I had a nickel for every time I got an "I'm sorry if my actions made you feel bad" type of apology...

They for sure didn't have his scar planned for at that point, or they wouldn't have made Blake look bad in hindsight here.

I would've gone with vengeful instead of spite, honestly. Or vengeance, if they want to noun about it.

[cassandrarose]

Cinder wasn't originally going to be pure evil. We could have had a nuanced Cinder Fall! Sheena Duquette posted early notes on what Cinder was supposed to be like

The notes can be found here: @sheenaduquette on Tumblr. Apparently original Cinder was being manipulated and had good intentions for the horrible things she was doing. She would have died sacrificing herself for others, with most only remembering her atrocities but some remembering the good she did. She also was in love with Summer Rose, a shocking twist.

I think the most interesting thing the writers could have done was merge that original concept with Cinder's traumatic canon story. This would have made her story more emotional and made Cinder more layered as a character. But no. It seems like the writers decided they had to go the edgelord route of stripping their most used and abused young woman of all redeeming qualities just so they can give her a cheered-for brutal death at the end of the story and redeem her more privileged and powerful abuser Salem instead. Sigh.

[itsclydebitches]

I remember a lot of people complaining about rwby being hypocrites but I think the point of v7 was to force them into ozpins shoes to lead to the reconciliation and putting them on even ground Rather then portray them as better then him

Hi there!

I think a case can definitely be made that Volumes 7-8 serve to put the gang into Ozpin's shoes. At least, in as much as they can understand the perspective of fighting this war for generations. However, "putting them on even ground" feels inaccurate to me. We have to keep in mind that this is all coming off of Volume 6's complete rejection of Ozpin, that the pre-and ongoing Atlas arc consists of the group continually insisting they know best, and that by the end of Volume 8 the group has failed in every way imaginable: allies dead, Salem with the Relics, Atlas gone, and the group effectively dead from everyone else's perspective. And yet, we know from the previews of Volume 10 that they're upheld as saints by everyone else who survived.

So really, I'd say they did exponentially worse than Ozpin the moment they were given the reins, but were then seen as better than him regardless :/

Also, to answer the question from your other ask: I haven't read that fairy tale yet! At this point there's so much RWBY content I need to catch up on...

[diaryofamadsunwukongfan]

So Im rewatching Cinder's backstory so I can do it in my rewrite and I think we as a community undersell just how mindnumbingly stupid Rhodes is.

He finds this starving, overworked, clearly abused child has stolen a weapon (so clearly already thinking about killing her abusers) and instead of doing anything that makes any kind of logical sense (removing Cinder from this situation, trying to report her stepmom for abuse and removing Cinder from this situation, etc.) He teaches her how to fight, gives her a weapon, and then just tells her to wait literal years until she can leave.

Like, Cinder killing her step-family is objectively his fault, he set up that situation!

[invested-in-your-future]

Are you still interested in finding out what happened to Summer in canon?

Honestly? Not really.

It's too little too late, and the order of story beats is all messed up.

Generally, the way you'd use Summer's fate is as part of the buildup to Ozpin's mystery and to make characters question his allegiance.

It's something that's tied to the protagonist but also serves as "an in" to the bigger mysteries of the setting.

Except now everything is already known.

Ozpin and Salem have no mysteries or secrets left. They basically do not matter with the introduction of Brother Gods and then yet another god above them. They aren't the big mystery, they aren't the focus of the show, they are just there.

Hell, Ozpin's morality is not in question either because the show had a 100% objective Genie plot device to show us he did absolutely nothing wrong.

Likewise, between the anticlimactic empty backstory, lack of motivations, and spending most of the show offscreen, Raven is basically boring now. So there's absolutely nothing that her history with Raven can add to either character here.

So what's there to build up with Summer's fate as a mystery?

The Silver Eyes, the thing that the show did nothing with in NINE seasons? The show's resident plot device flashbang? What can be done with Summer regarding this that can't already be done with Maria?

Another way Summer could be used is as an element of Ruby questioning her ideals and beliefs. She based her worldview on Summer, but what if Summer wasn't the person Ruby hoped she would be?

That sure would be interesting except that Volume Nine exists, and the show basically solved Ruby's conflict in the weirdest way possible, and she's "cured" of having doubts or flaws or making mistakes and all that pesky stuff.

At this point, Summer's mystery would be solved just because it hasn't been solved already.

There's absolutely nothing the show can do that would further characterization OR worldbuilding?

Of course, they could also do the most MilesWBY thing ever and tie Silver Eyes to the Brother Gods, but that's like the antithesis of interesting. And it still doesn't further anything in the story beyond adding more weird religious subtext.

There's basically nothing that can be done with her that wouldn't be either anticlimactic or make the show worse.

The show missed the moment when it should have been relevant. And that's BEFORE any sort of resolution to Ruby's arc, before Raven turns irrelevant, before the show runs out of conflicts by glossing over them.

It's an afterthought. One that they likely have zero planned answers for.

[invested-in-your-future]

were you thinking of pyrrha with that peacemaker post?

Penny.

Yes, one of the better ways to unalive* Penny again would have been for Ruby to directly witness it happening in the heat of the moment, the reality of "necessary choice" itself traumatizing her. It would make all the emotions and trauma she held back surface all over again as Atlas falls apart around her, leading into whatever they were attempting with V9, where she blames herself for all of it. Once again, as a Kingdom fell, all she could do was see her friend die in front of her.

What's more, it's such a familiar situation to ALL of them, except they are on that rooftop watching the city fall this time.

It would allow them to focus more on the complicity of them all in what happened, the issues and flaws in their heroism so far, the hypocrisy, and Ruby's emotional turmoil. It would provide actual guilt for Jaune (if they have to have him here). Weiss would have to process her home being gone, Blake would have more complicated feelings due to the whole Faunus slavery issue, and the team would question their choices and actions, etc. In doing what they usually do, they effectively destroyed the last Kingdom with any fighting chance, so where do they go from here? Could they have done something better? How can they handle the realization that their actions are irreversible?

A messier start for V9 that focuses more on the team dynamics would have provided a conclusion that could have felt earned, one where the characters search for a way to move forward after messing up.

It would have brought the story back to the nature of humanity and moving forward, which the show likes to harp about.

Instead, everyone ignores Ruby, the audience laughs as Weiss trips over some rocks, Jaune has the Big Manpain, and then we get another infodump about gods in the candyland. And Ruby gets told that she made no mistakes and should never change because admitting your flaws is evil, and they are on the mission from god, so they can't be wrong or do evil.

This is what's so annoying about RWBY narrative issues. Almost always, there's just a smidge of "this could have been REALLY good if literally everything else was different".

*Using this term here properly since this is literally about RT reviving Penny for clickbait and then undoing that once she ran out of use, also for clickbait.

[invested-in-your-future]

The latest episode of Peacemaker is the prime example of a well-executed case of an ensemble cast, using information they had available, making a non-malicious wrong (and irreversible) choice which in turn causes psychological trauma to the lead character and creates long-term consequences.

Twice.

Now the premise is familiar enough for others to have done it worse. The protagonist finds people close to them after having lost them. Before they can grapple with what this means and whether this can actually be counted as the same person they lose them again, this time to someone they care about making a decision, in a situation that parallels the traumatic memories they had from the first time.

Yet here it works.

It works so damn well because it clashes with the viewer emotionally and makes them doubt and debate within their mind on what happened and why it's wrong.

Because the show acknowledges it is wrong and messy. It doesn't feel the need to justify the characters actions. If there is one thing this show has succeeded form the start is establishing and acknowledging that these people are capable of wrong choices and have actual flaws and experiences that lead to those choices.

A good story will always make the audience cheer when characters pick the right path but also acknowledge when the characters might now have. Eliciting both emotions from the audience is crucial to making characters look like they have depth.

Because making the right choice is, well, quite literally a choice. It should be.

Going back to my hopepunk post it's why Superman works. He is not predestined to make the right choices, but he wants to.

If you take away the characters ability to make irreversible and dark choices that unintentionally hurt people close to them you are taking away more than characterization, tragedy and angst. You damage the believability of those characters the audience would have.

Everything has a price in a story, every moment of happiness, every good decision, every success.

If only "the bad guys" make wrong choices and regret things and only "the good guys" make all the right ones, then those labels cease to have real purpose.

If you villify the very idea of a flaw, of a chance to portray trauma, and proudly proclaim nobody should change or grow because "they are the good guys", you rob the characters of their agency and depth.

By failing and doubting and discovering the lie within the very core of their being, a character, especially the protagonist, can be realized into something the audience can care for, someone who grows, someone who change.

And change is the crux of every story, of every character. It's what drives each scene in the narrative and what fuels the progression of the plot.

The less afraid you are of your characters messing up the better grasp you have on who they are as people.

And the less they come off as tropes.