The Character Conundrum Part 2

For those of you who are aware, I recently blogged about the importance of character creation and some of the areas that need to be considered during the creative process. For those of you who have not had an opportunity to read this post, I created the following list of issues that I felt were important to creating interesting, memorable characters:

• Consistency of Behaviour

• Emotional Engagement

• Actions and Interactions

• Layers, Depth and Understanding

• Supportive Actions

• Fanservice and Stereotype Consideration

• Gender

• Development

I have already addressed four of these in the previous post (feel free to check it out), but there are still four areas that need to be discussed. What do I mean when I mention ‘fanservice’ and why has ‘gender’ been given a section of its own?

Let’s get started and find out.

Supportive Actions

This is a very similar concept to the ‘Consistency of Behaviour’ that I discussed earlier in this article, but contains enough differences within it to warrant a section of its own.

While ‘Consistency of behaviour’ relies solely on the experiences of the character, ‘Supportive Actions’ are more dependent on the world the character interacts with. It is about placing the character in a wider context and ensuring that their reactions make sense. A person from one culture may have difficulty understanding another and a member of the upper class will look upon members of a lower class differently to themselves.

This is probably most evident to those who are interested in sci-fi, where cultures and alien species are used on a regular basis to explore how we think and to question what we believe. To use a famous example, Spock is a Vulcan, an alien species who harbour deep emotions and great physical strength. However, the species has had a terrible, bloody past and have come to value the safety and reliability of logic. In contrast to this is Leonard (Bones) McCoy, a crotchety human doctor who understands the value of human compassion and the necessity of instinct. They have two very different backgrounds and can clash (or agree) because of them.

Now boys. Which one of you gave me the creepy reptile?

Age also plays a large part in contextualising a character due to a difference in emotional and mental understanding of a situation. Aang from Last Airbender is a fun-loving child, brought up by peaceful Air Nomads, who struggled to learn the four elements. He wanted to flee his responsibility because there was too much pressure for him at the age he was. In contrast is his reincarnation, Korra, an impatient, hot-tempered teenager who was brought up in isolation and managed to master three of the four elements very quickly, making her cocky and head-strong. While both have to grow up and accept their responsibilities, they do so at different stages in their lives with different results, even if they both desire the same thing.

People are products of their culture, even if they don’t always agree with what’s around them. You only have to look at Katniss Everdeen to see that.

Careful Clues:

Consider the wider world of your character and think about what that will mean for them. Think about where your characters have come from and what they know and always keep their backstory in mind. How might they handle an opinion different from their own?

Also keep the importance of age in mind. This will affect their physical ability and what jobs they can do. Don’t be afraid to play with expectations in terms of culture, age and species, but do not forget to consider why you may choose to go a certain route or what makes it possible.

Fanservice and Stereotype Consideration

Fanservice and stereotypes have a bad reputation and for good reason. For those who are unaware of the term, ‘fanservice’ is used to describe a scene that is used to excite or titillate a viewer or reader. It is usually sexual in nature, relying on skimpy, tight, or a complete lack of clothing and normally applies to female characters although male characters do experience this as well. Superheroes are prime examples of this trait with characters like Wonder Woman often being portrayed in impractical but skimpy outfits.

In contrast, a ‘stereotype’ is a widely held but overly simplified idea of a particular type of person or thing such as ‘All Blondes are Stupid’ (My apologies to all blondes). Most of us are aware of them and do find many of them to be completely nonsense.

So what exactly do I mean by ‘Fanservice or Stereotype Consideration’? Believe it or not, something that counts as ‘fanservice’ or a stereotype can actually serve a purpose, both for the character and the plot in general.

For example, Kate Beckett from Castle has had several moments that could be considered fanservice-y. However, she is an NYPD detective and uses these moments to establish a cover or throw off a suspect. In contrast, Carol Marcus’ infamous underwear scene in Star Trek Into Darkness had absolutely no narrative point other than to show a pretty woman in her underwear. On the male side of things, Thor’s shirtless scene had very little purpose other than to give the female characters something to drool over, while Mal’s naked scene in Firefly was a way to make him feel helpless and out of control of the situation.

Sadly, for many superheroes, the skimpy fanservice-y outfits that many would consider impractical have actually become iconic and we have stopped seeing them as a way of sexualising the characters and more as part of their identity. Attempts to change these outfits are often met with anger and outcry, both from fans and marketing executives alike, making it impossible to seriously alter the look of pre-established superheroines (although many have tried).

This is the look of a woman who can and will make you regret the moment you ever learned to wolf-whistle.

But what about the stereotypes I mentioned earlier? Surely we should be ignoring them rather than addressing them?

Stereotypes exist and ignoring them will not make them go away because people will still hear about them. However, it is possible to use a stereotype to a character’s advantage. The best example I can give for this is the character of Rarity from My Little Pony. A lady-like fashionista who hates getting her hooves dirty, you would expect her to fall apart and be worse than Princess Peach if she was ever kidnapped. Well, she was and not only did this mare use the stereotype to her advantage, she also completely debunked the idea that ‘Lady’ meant ‘Helpless’.

It is only when we take careful consideration of these moments and emphasise the importance of ‘Narrative Purpose’ that we can start moving away from these negative associations.

Careful Clues:

This is something that you are more likely to come across while writing rather than during the character creation process but a lot of this will come from what you already know of the character.

It is important to always ask yourself ‘Why?’ as well as ‘Is this consistent with the character I know?’ A fanservice-y moment with a character who would not normally walk around in their underwear is not only jarring and confusing for the audience, but is also a bit disrespectful to the character themselves unless there is an underlying narrative purpose. And no, just to set up a sex scene does not count as narrative purpose. In addition, it is also necessary to consider the situation at hand and address the practicalities of such a move. After all, midriff-baring armour is a bit useless on the battlefield.

If a fanservice moment has a point and a practical purpose, keep it in. If it’s a character trait rather than a stereotype, keep it in. But if you cannot justify why a stereotype should feature in the narrative or why that fanservice moment is there in the first place, get rid of it.

Gender

To address the idea of a character’s gender is to leave yourself open to criticism and ridicule, but I maintain that it is something that has to be discussed. Gender plays a huge role in the psychology of a character and how they identify themselves. After all, a transgender is someone who does not identify themselves as the gender they were born with.

For a writer, the gender of a character can be very limiting, especially if the culture of the plot has very specific gender views or values. But alternatively, it can also be very liberating, allowing a writer to explore the social dynamics and expectations that come with specific genders. After all, our attitude towards an emotional woman is different to that of an emotional man because of culture expectations. In fact, some writers have deliberately changed the gender of their character for just this reason, either because of a sudden thought or, in the case of visual media, because of an actor change. Two prime examples would be the character of Toph from Last Airbender or Starbuck from the more recent Battlestar Galatica. Part of the reason why they resonated so much with audiences was to do with their genders and how they played with expectations, often shattering them in the process. Toph’s a small blind girl who is not particularly feminine (although she does enjoy a trip to the spa the one time she goes) and is able to move huge rocks without breaking a sweat, while Starbuck drinks, smokes cigars and gambles just as much as her male counterparts.

Yes. That IS a wrestling belt she's holding. And not because she's playing the part of 'lovely assistant'.

Gender is an important issue for a character because it will affect how others see them and how they see themselves. But at no point does that mean that they are limited in what they can do or who they can be when handled by a good writer.

Careful Clues:

Take another look at your character’s gender in relation to your plot.

Part of the reason why I have put this so late in the list is that I think it’s one of the last things you should examine when creating a character. Some characters will waltz into your imagination fully formed but others require careful thought and consideration.

I will not tell you to create a unisex character until this stage. In fact, I would encourage you to have a gender in mind when shaping their personality and history. But when you have a good idea of who they are, ask yourself what would happen if you applied the same personality traits to the opposite gender.

This may not result in anything but it might lead you to a pleasant surprise or sudden inspiration.

Character Development

The eighth and final item on the list is the one that requires the least amount of explanation and relies the most on what you intend to write.

Events shape people and by the time an audience reaches the end of the narrative, they expect to find a different character from the one they started with. After all, if Tiana from The Princess and the Frog was still working all hours of the day without a break or Jim Kirk refused to consider the consequences of acting recklessly, their stories would have been frustrating and boring.

Where do you think 'Happily-Ever-After's come from?

Development doesn’t have to involve a huge attitude change or personality alteration. After all, Hermione Granger is still the same intelligent know-it-all we met on the Hogwarts Express by the time the final battle occurs. But time and her experiences mellowed her, allowing her to become more flexible and to understand when bending the rules becomes necessary.

But while plot can help to develop characters, characters and our knowledge of them can also help to shape plot. Writers have spoken in the past about how their plans have been altered by how their characters have reacted. Tamora Pierce, during the course of writing her debut series, has spoken of how she intended to make her protagonist choose a certain route, before finding herself struggling with the final third of the book. It was only when she listened to the character that she realised her mistake and allowed the character to choose something else, leaving her with a different outcome than originally planned but one that she was much happier with.

Character development is one of the easiest things to define, but is incredibly hard to execute and is the reason why we will always remember our favourites.

Careful Clues:

Listen to your characters.

George R.R Martin said it best when he described writers as ‘Architects’ or ‘Gardeners’. Some writers know exactly where their narrative is going to go and never deviate from it, while others have an idea but are willing to see what happens as they go. But whichever one you are, always remember to keep your mind open to what your characters might be telling you. Even the best laid plans can go awry if you are not willing to be flexible for unforeseen circumstances.

And there you have it. Eight things to think about during character creation. Please let me know if you would like me to elaborate on any of these points in another post.

You may find some of these will be easier to achieve than others and you may not even find the answers in the order I’ve given you above. But that’s fine. Everyone has their own way of writing. I’m not going to tell you the right or wrong way to do it. It’s a very personal journey and all anyone can do is provide tips and suggestions. It is ultimately your decision as to what you choose to do. But I hope you will take these points into consideration when you start writing.

Good luck to all of you.

The Character Conundrum

Well we are now into November, a time when the Christmas references become acceptable, the coats, scarves and gloves are dug out of their hiding places and many writers are turning their attention and time to Nanowrimo.

For those of you who have seen this reference but aren’t really sure of what it means, Nanowrimo stands for ‘November Novel Writing Month’, a project that encourages writers to set themselves a challenge of writing 50,000 words in the 30 days of November. Writers sign on take part and can contribute to forums, talk to other writers and write the novel they have always wanted to write. All they have to do to win is hit the word count.

That is not to say that every writer will come up with something fantastic immediately (indeed, writers whose Nanowrimo efforts were actually published have emphasised the importance of editing but I’ve mentioned this before) and many writers have declared it to be a waste of time. But for many, this sense of structure and obligation is exactly what is needed to motivate them to actually put pen to paper and write that story that has been floating in their heads for years and to give life to characters that have been stuck in half-formed existence.

Characters are a difficult thing to create and it is generally believed that female writers find it difficult to write male characters and that a male writer simply cannot write a good female character. I personally think that this is nonsense (Joss Whedon and JK Rowling spring to mind). After all, the best characters are those we remember and shouldn’t be judged solely on their gender.

So what would I consider to be a good character?

I have some pretty strong views on what counts as a good character regardless of gender, but I do acknowledge that there are some points which apply more to female characters than male ones and vice-versa. After some consideration, I have come up with a list of issues that I think need to be addressed when creating any sort of character:

• Consistency of Behaviour

• Emotional Engagement

• Actions and Interactions

• Layers, Depth and Understanding

• Supportive Actions

• Fanservice and Stereotype Consideration

• Gender

• Development

Many of these points are no doubt familiar to you as they are often floated around when discussing characters, no matter if you are looking at the situation from the perspective of a creator or a consumer. But I have no doubt that there are also one or two points that may not make much sense.

Since there are so many areas to cover, I will be addressing the first four topics on this list here before addressing the remaining four in a separate post. In order to make this as comprehensive as possible, I will be addressing each area separately, using examples that I think best illustrate my point, before providing some suggestions which might help in your own writing. This is by no means an exhaustive list and I have no doubt that some will not agree with everything I have to say so please feel free to let me know if you think I have missed something.

So, shall we begin?

Consistency of Behaviour

This might seem like a strange place to start, but I personally think it is one of the most important stages in character creation before even considering plot or narrative.

Consistency of behaviour is behaviour that is consistent with the character. This seems obvious but is very difficult to achieve in practice as behaviour can be motivated by personal beliefs, past experiences or personality. After all, an impulsive character like Korra from Legend of Korra reacts differently to one who takes time to plan and prepare, like Tenzin.

No Korra, you cannot have a tattoo yet.

Many writers discover who their characters are as they write, figuring out personality and pasts as they go. Our past shapes who we are and how we react to certain circumstances. So, Wonder Woman reacts differently than Batman does because her personality has been shaped by different circumstances. They may agree at points, but that agreement comes from a different understanding and independent thought process.

That is not to say that someone will never act out of character for comedic or dramatic purposes, but a writer needs to establish where the boundaries lie before they can start pushing them.

Careful Clues:

Simply, get to know your character. Think of them as a new acquaintance and spend time getting to know them. Learn their likes, dislikes, strengths and weaknesses. These will help you to shape and understand who they are. You may find that elements of them change the longer you spend with them and that some elements of their personality don’t work within the plot when you come to write it. But give yourself a solid foundation upon which to build and develop.

Brendan O’Connell provides a good suggestion from Syd Field’s Screenplay which is just as effective for budding novelists as it is for potential screenwriters:

‘…a scriptwriter should compose a ‘back story’ for the main character in their movie. Just twenty pages that cover his life before we meet him. The scriptwriter may never actually use any of this, but it really makes a difference when the character meets an obstacle in the film-knowing his back story gives an idea of how HE would get around it.’ 

Emotional Engagement

Emotional engagement can easily be summarised into one question: Why should we be interested in this person?

There is a common misconception that this means that a character has to be likeable or relatable in order for an audience to engage with them. I think that this concept is nonsense. After all, it is possible to find a character despicable and still be interested in what happens to them during the course of the narrative, like Azula (one of the villains from Last Airbender). Nor do you have to agree with everything they say or do to be invested in them.

Why do you think THIS guy is so popular?

Our interest in characters is motivated by what we know about them, or indeed what we don’t know. It comes from their backstory, how they react to others, how others react to them or even how they behave. It’s one of the main reasons why the Red Wedding from Game of Thrones upset so many fans; they had become invested in the characters and cared about what happened to them.

However, interest is not merely motivated by hard facts about a character. We can know very little about them and still feel invested in their lives. It’s one of the main reasons why some minor characters are given a larger role later in a series. Phil Coulson from the Marvel universe is one prime example of a character that we know very few solid facts about and yet has a very solid fanbase due to of his interactions with others.

Sadly, this is also one of the major pitfalls in creating a female character. In comic books in particular, a woman must first become a victim before she can develop as a character. This is often to invoke sympathy and to create an emotional imprint on the audience, such as the Red Wasp from the Marvel universe. This occurs across both genders (indeed Batman is probably the poster boy for this concept) and can be handled very well depending on the writer, but it can also be considered a manipulative shortcut. A writer should never rely on one emotion in order to make a character interesting. After all, it may have been the tragic backstory that got River Tam onto the Serenity. But that wasn’t what made her memorable.

At the end of the day, if an audience cannot remember a character, then they will simply not care about what happens to them.

Careful Clues:

Care about your characters. Think back to your school days and those who taught you. Many of you will have fond memories of certain subjects simply because of the teachers. The best lessons were often those taught by people who were excited about the subject. Their passion motivated your interest and the creation of characters comes from the same place.

If you are interested in the characters you create, it will help you to understand who they are. And if you understand who they are, then you can help others get to know them too. And always ask yourself why you think something is important to the character.

The worst characters are not the ones people hate. They are the ones that no one is interested in.

Actions and Interactions

This is where most of the emotional engagement comes from and relies on two different areas that must be addressed in turn; what a character does and how they connect with others.

Actions are simply what a character does during the context of your plot and how they will face certain events. As we get to know characters, we learn what they will and will not do based on their abilities and past experience. I’ve mentioned this earlier, so I will try not to repeat myself too much.

What is more often ignored is the importance of character interaction. How we feel about characters often comes from how they connect with others or what they say about them and can often provide insight into what drives the character in the first place. It is one of the key things that can make a character interesting to an audience. This is best seen in the characters of Peter Pan’s Tinker Bell or Marvel’s Phil Coulson. Hard-core fans may know details about them, but for most of us, we have very little information to go on. Tinker Bell doesn’t even talk (unless you take the latest films into account)! We have an idea about how they will face certain situations, but it is the way they interact with others that provides the most interest. How they treat those they respect against those they don’t really know is what makes them interesting and, more importantly, makes them people.

This is one of the key things that seems to suffer in attempts to create ‘strong female’ characters because writers can choose to focus too much on what someone is doing rather than making an effort to make a character engaging. It is possible to make a character strong, kick-ass and active but still be completely boring. For me, Black Widow is a prime example of this possibility. All of her personality traits and redeeming qualities come from her job. She is rarely seen interacting with anyone and becomes isolated from the rest of the group. She is defined solely by her official title and it is only in the last third, when she is reunited with Hawkeye, that we start to get the impression that she is more than a named background character.

So help me Russo if you don't give this woman character development, I may cry!

In contrast to this is Buffy Summers, who also comes under Joss Whedon’s direction. Buffy might be as kick-ass as Black Widow, but she also connects with people. She goes to school, she has friends and a family. She is a person who happens to be able to take down supernatural beings.

I know many fans will disagree with me but I believe that you cannot solely rely on someone’s actions to create the necessary emotional engagement for audiences. It doesn’t happen in real life and it certainly doesn’t in fiction.

Careful Clues:

Go beyond the boundaries of your story and figure out who your character is. Start with the backstory and figure out the hobbies they have when they have time to spare or the friends that they have made outside of the workplace. Are they a parent? Do they have pets? Perhaps they volunteer in their spare time.

This will also be a big deal when actually addressing the main narrative. An interaction can come from anywhere. It can be a random encounter on the street or a long standing friendship. Two similar people might rub each other the wrong way but total opposites may get on like a house on fire. Ask yourself what connects or indeed repels these characters and how that initial impression has been maintained. Is one manipulating the other? Did someone do or say something to catch the other’s attention?

Some of this will be figured out as you go but just remember to lay the foundation before you try to build on it. This is about creating a sense of scale and establishing a life for the characters beyond the beginning of the story.

Layers, Depth and Understanding

Another obvious one, but it is one which many writers seem to struggle with especially within the realms of children’s media.

It is very easy to characterise people using certain terminology; the Jerk, the Nice Guy, the Bookworm, the Risk Taker. In reality, people are more complex than this and are very difficult to define when all aspects of their character are taken into account. The reason that these labels exist has less to do with the character they apply to, and everything to do with the person doing the labelling.

Children’s media is very susceptible to this because we believe that children see things very simply. The nice person is the good guy, a horrible person is the bad guy and friends like the same thing. For female characters in children’s media, these simplistic labels and understanding of friendship can lead to very simplistic stories and groups with very little variation.

For characters in a group dynamic, variety can be found but there is often a single shared desire or interest which fuels the friendship. The Babysitter’s Club were a group of girls with an interest in babysitting while the Bratz were individuals with a shared love of fashion. But without that single interest, there is rarely anything motivating the friendship. There is no depth to the characters or to the relationships they have created.

However, writers are getting better at creating variety and depth to characters. The latest incarnation of My Little Pony has used many of the pre-existing labels for a group of girls but the writers have made an effort to mix and match. The Athletic Tomboy also has a love of reading and doesn’t mind getting dressed up while the Lady-like Fashionista is able to hold her own in a fight and will get covered in mud if the situation calls for it. A strong character can have moments of weakness and a weak character can still be strong.

Take a guess at which one's which. I dare you!

Layers and depth are also two of the biggest things that suffer under adaptations as writers choose to emphasise one characteristic over another. Wonder Woman’s ability to kick-ass and take names was emphasised over her compassion and background in the infamous Wonder Woman pilot.

People are not flat one-dimensional beings and the face that is shown to one person might not be the face that they show to someone else.

Careful Clues:

This is all about building on the backstory of your character and figuring out who they are in the present rather than who they were in the past.

Also take into consideration the things that they will never reveal to another person. What is your character’s biggest secret? It doesn’t need to be big or dramatic. Does your hero secretly have a fondness for fluffy slippers? Does the boss have a hidden chocolate drawer in the office? Does the bad guy simply want to know what it’s like to be good? Perhaps the tough woman of the gym actually likes wearing feminine dresses on her days off or the annoying womaniser is secretly asexual.

Some of these things you will never directly address in your writing, but you might find something that surprises you and helps to make your character feel more like a person than a cardboard cut-out.

Time for a break!

I hope you have found this comprehensive so far and that you have been given some food for thought. I will be posting the remainder of this list in the near future so please let me know if you find the current format helpful.

My best wishes to all those taking part in Nanowrimo.

And now for something completely different...

So it looks like Natalie Portman has been making noise in feminist circles after an interview with Elle featured this rather controversial statement.

The fallacy in Hollywood is that if you’re making a "feminist" story, the woman kicks ass and wins. That’s not feminist, that’s macho. A movie about a weak, vulnerable woman can be feminist if it shows a real person that we can empathise with.

I discovered this article long after I started originally writing this post, but it helped me to reorientate my thoughts about this very subject and confirmed many of my own arguments. This blog was originally meant to discuss the elements of publishing and characterisation, but now I’m about to go down a path that I never thought I would take and discuss a potentially dangerous topic; feminism and what we consider feminist in characters. Don’t worry, I will be back to my normal topics of conversation next time but consider this first post as an introduction to my next one in which I will be delving a bit more into what makes a good female character.

Don't say I didn't try and warn you

What do I mean by feminism?

If you try and bring up the word ‘feminism’ in a casual conversation, you may get one of two responses. One, you might get people groaning and begging you to change the subject (in fact, some of you might have already decided that you don’t want to carry on reading this post and instead have gone to check your Facebook page or delve into the other wonders of the interwebs). Or two, you will have someone latching onto the subject and providing a three minute monologue on the subject. For the fortunate few, an intelligent and interesting debate about feminism and what it means may be initiated, so for those of you who fall into this category, I bid you welcome and hope you have something to add to this. However, the majority of people still fall within this first category because somewhere along the way our understanding of the word ‘feminism’ has become something less to be celebrated and more to be condemned.

For many of us, we have become well acquainted with stereotypical feminism and what it means. To be a feminist is to be always serious, to be considered unattractive by men (because surely an attractive woman would not need feminism), to hate all men and consider them the scum of the earth, to avoid all cosmetics or things that could possibly be considered ‘feminine’ and to be poised to complain about anything as potentially unfeminist, whether it is a politician’s unsavoury remarks or the shape of a hot dog.

Sound familiar?

So, what exactly is the official definition of a feminist? Well, according to Oxford dictionaries, the definition is a little bit different than you might expect:

the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

Let me reiterate this. Equality. Not superiority.

It is very easy at the moment to consider that most women within the Western world are already considered equal, and while we may be in a much better position than we were in our parents’ or grandparents’ time, we still have a long way to go.

I am not going to address the political or social aspects of feminism because that was never what this blog was meant to focus on and frankly, I think there are many people out there who will be able to describe these concepts in a much better way than I can. Instead, I wish to use this as a springboard to examine feminism in regards to characterisation and our responses to that. Writers are constantly struggling to create good female characters in modern media and are constantly encouraged to write strong female role models for young girls. The princess in the tower must now make her own escape instead of waiting for the prince to save her, and she must do it while kicking ass and taking names. If she doesn’t match this description, she is criticised for being weak and passive and for the negative associations she brings for women.

But are we right to do this? Or more importantly, should we be criticising her for not meeting our expectations?

The women of new-Who

Allow me to put this into context by sharing with you what motivated me to write this post in the first place.

A few weeks ago, I came across a post on Tumblr that focused on the female companions of Doctors 9 through 11 and the titles that they were given throughout the course of their time aboard the TARDIS. Most of you will know what I mean but for those of you who do not, I would like to direct you to the post in question and will do my best to make this as comprehensive as possible. The characters of the first three women featured on the post (Rose Tyler, Martha Jones and Donna Noble) were written during the tenure of Russell T Davis while the last two characters (Amy Pond and Clara Oswald) come under the direction of the new head scriptwriter, Steven Moffat. The post is considered to be a feminist perspective of the Doctor’s companions and heavily criticises Moffat’s portrayal and treatment of women during the course of his role.

As a woman and as a fan of Doctor Who, I am no stranger to these kinds of arguments. And certainly, I thought that while reading the arguments themselves, I would support them or at least find myself considering things from a new perspective. After all, my blogs are about sharing opinions even if they are only my own for the moment. However, I found myself disagreeing with these comments and felt that a lot of the show’s context was being ignored.

Things are much bigger than they appear.

The first main argument states that Martha and Donna have titles involving the word ‘Woman’ while Amy and Clara’s titles use ‘Girl’. The use of ‘Woman’ versus ‘Girl’ has come under scrutiny in the past for being disempowering towards women. After all, the word ‘Girl’ is used for children or teenagers, those who are currently under the care of others and do not have the authority to make decisions for themselves and are usually not treated as equals by other adults. It is the same argument that protests the use of princesses rather than queens in fairy tales and fantasy stories, especially those aimed at children. Why are we constantly placing an emphasis on women without power or those with limited power and condemning those who do have that power by portraying them as ‘evil’?

Now on the surface this is a very valid point. Infantilising and restricting the power of female characters is something that the media has to fight against. However, the post also addresses another point; that in Moffat’s run it was the Doctor who created these nicknames while the others were named by other humans. This is very important because it places the use of these comments within their proper context. The Doctor is a very old man in a very young body. At the last check he was over 1,000 years old, but this is debatable as neither the characters nor the writers are entirely sure of his exact age. From his perspective, humans are still children by comparison and he has expressed words to this effect more than once. In addition, the Doctor also refers to Rory Williams (Amy’s husband) as ‘The Boy who Waited’ (although his ‘official’ title is ‘The Last Centurion’).

(Please note that no mention is made of Rose’s title which is unrelated to her gender.)

These titles are also merely made in passing. They do not define who these characters are. Amy might be known as ‘The Girl who Waited’ by the fans, but she also makes it clear that she stopped waiting when she grew up and the Doctor tells us that she also has the ability to remember things that never happened. Rose’s title is a message that is only used as a signal of her presence within the Doctor’s timeline. Donna and Martha both received their titles towards the end of their official ‘companionships’ (with Martha even losing her official title as the world reset itself, meaning that the circumstances in which she received it no longer existed) and Clara was never aware of her title as ‘The Impossible Girl’. These are phrases that we, the fans, have used to define them based within the context of the show itself.

Next, the term ‘side characters’ and the fact that both Amy and Clara are only ‘puzzles for the Doctor’. A side character is someone who supports the protagonist but is not essential to the story. Both Amy and Clara have proved time and time again that they are essential, not just for the Doctor to show off to but also for providing new perspectives and doing things that are central for the story, even going so far as to solve things that the Doctor can’t. They are complex individuals, capable of great strength and crippling weakness, embodying the essence of good characterisation. We as an audience are interested in who they are and we therefore care about what happens to them.

In regards to argument about being ‘puzzles’, this cannot be denied. After all, both Amy and Clara create puzzles for the Doctor to solve. However, those puzzles are not what interested him in the first place and are certainly not anything new to the Who-verse. ‘Bad Wolf’ was the main mystery of Doctor 9’s time in the TARDIS, which was eventually discovered and revealed to be Rose herself. What needs to be remembered is that in all these cases, the puzzle appeared after the Doctor interacted with the people and decided that he liked them. The interest was established before the puzzle came to light and it was because he was interested in the individuals that he became interested in the puzzles. While it could be argued that this was not the case for Clara to a certain extent, I would hasten to point out the solution to her mystery: that she scattered herself throughout the Doctor’s timeline in order to save his life and ensure that everything he did wasn’t undone by someone else. By the time the Doctor first meets her, whether you consider that to be as an embodied voice in the Asylum of the Daleks, the governess in Victorian London or the nanny in 21^st century London, she has already done this. The wheels have been set in motion and his interest begins because of the actions she has already taken.

Context, context, context

Context does not only apply to contemporary media but is also essential when making feminist arguments about media from the past. It is incredibly easy to argue that books written in the past were unsympathetic towards women or that women are badly treated in early literature and should be looked upon with scathing feminist criticism because the characters do not match our sensibilities regarding women’s rights and characterisation. However by focusing our modern understanding on, for example, a Dickens novel, we run the risk of misunderstanding and misinterpreting the story and its characters.

Rules and expectations change over time. They change because of laws, wars, circumstances, beliefs and even technology. If they did not, the abolition of slavery would not have taken place, women would not have been given the vote and children would still be considered property. When people write or create, it is often a reflection on what they know of the time or what they think might be possible in the future. Imagination will fill in the blanks but the spark will usually appear because of a person’s current context. So why do we seem to believe that this was any different for our predecessors?

An example would be the character of Fanny Price from Mansfield Park, often considered to be the most boring and irritating of Jane Austen’s heroines. Adaptations of the novel have fought to change the shy, moral heroine into someone significantly more ‘interesting’ for our modern sensibilities. She is not witty like Elizabeth Bennett, funny and endearing like Catherine Morland or even romantically tragic like Anne Elliott. In fact, she completely goes against what we believe women should be.

Or does she?

Boring and moralistic? Or a hidden champion of feminism?

This is the point when context both within and beyond the story becomes necessary. We know that Fanny is shy and timid. She’s the second eldest of nine children in a poor household, who has been pulled away from everything she knows to live with rich relatives. To her, they are strangers and she is encouraged to remember that despite the fact that she is living with them and being educated to their standard, she is not one of them. She creates a moral compass for herself and endeavours to follow it dutifully, which she does even when it causes her problems. A rich man offers to marry her but she refuses because she knows that he has behaved badly towards her female cousins (who do not treat her well). However, in order to protect their honour (an important and fragile thing at the time), she refuses to say anything and endures going against her uncle, and being sent back to her poor family as a subtle punishment for her wilfulness.

Let me put this into context for you. At the time Austen was living, women did not have many prospects. You were under the care of your father or brother and you either married or went into service. If you were wealthy enough, you might survive being a spinster but if you had no one to look out for you? You may not have been able to earn the money you needed to survive. If you were a servant, you might have some protection in the household but Fanny has lived too long among her wealthier relatives to be able to cope with the harshness of the position. While she has the education necessary for a governess, socially, Fanny runs the risk of becoming more isolated as she is neither a member of the house nor a servant.

For a woman as quiet and timid as Fanny to not only refuse a proposal that was financially beneficial to her but was to a man whom she considered to be dishonourable and morally wrong, and to stick with her decision despite the opinions of those she loves, is monumental. It takes a great deal of courage to stand up for your beliefs but to do so within this context makes it a much more courageous act. Vera Nazarian wrote an article about Fanny’s position as a feminist and referred to her as a ‘feminist of the truest kind’. You may find her full article here.

Final thoughts

It is very easy to make snap judgements about whether or not a character should be considered feminist based on an outward appearance because we assume that feminism can only be one thing. However, as we have seen feminism doesn’t always have to be aggressive and vocal. Elle Woods from Legally Blonde hardly follows the traditional avenue of feminism with her slightly ditzy attitude, obsession with pink and focus on fashion. And yet she is a caring, intelligent woman who never apologises for who she is and doesn’t compromise her beliefs in order to achieve success. She may have gone to law school for the wrong reasons but she did it using her own abilities. In contrast, the character of Hit Girl from ‘Kick Ass’ has the ability to drop grown men that are twice her size and even surpass them in fighting and shooting abilities but she is also a girl who was denied a childhood by her father and became a tool for a man who was searching for revenge and was prevented from making proper human connections.

So which of these would we consider the good feminist example? The one who did not compromise who she was to get what she wanted? Or the one who was forced to change to fulfil someone else’s expectations?

We seem to have developed this idea that a feminist character is a female who is strong and able to hold their own in a fight without showing weakness. That those who do not aggressively meet or inspire events should be considered passive and therefore are not valid feminist role models. However, by doing this we risk the possibility of confusing what is ‘feminist’ and who women are. The ability to shoot a gun does not automatically make a character narratively interesting or deep regardless of whether they are male or female and if we, as an audience, don’t care about the character, why should we care about what they are trying to achieve? Isn’t creating a female character with a black belt, who the audience are not interested in, just as bad as creating a female character whose sole purpose is to act as a love interest for the hero?

Quick update

It has been a long time since my previous post and my plans to re-read the whole Harry Potter series is still in effect. Sadly though, it must be confessed that I have not had the opportunity to pick up the first book due to reality giving me a kick in the backside.

Suffice to say I am once again unemployed and so the vast majority of my belongings, including the aforementioned books, are about to begin their new life in boxes until this changes. I may be able to get hold of the books another way and still continue my plans but it is much more likely that they will be put on hold until such times as I get settled elsewhere.

However, not all news is bad and I will continue to blog as and when I find myself with something to say. Hopefully I can continue writing about interesting topics that you might want to read and will continue to analyse things that you may never have considered in the meantime.

Make no mistake, I have not abandoned my plans. They have just been put on hold and I hope that it will not be long before I find myself able to take them up again.

Alohomora!

It is no surprise to many of you (if indeed anyone is reading this) to find that I am a Harry Potter fan. Let's be honest, there were not many people in my age group who weren't. I have certainly encountered a number of adults who have mixed feelings about it, including one English teacher who claimed that she was forever grateful to J.K Rowling for teaching an entire generation how to pronounce 'Hermione' correctly.

It is very difficult to find someone who hasn't encountered the series in some form or another. Between the publicity and marketing that surrounded the books, to the point that a delay in publishing date was actually considered newsworthy, to the trailers and marketing for the films, Harry Potter was considered somewhat legendary in the realms of children's literature. Never before had a fantasy series aimed for children become so global, to the point that publishers are still looking for something that can replace the gap it left in the market. At least four of the books were in the top 25 for the Nation's favourite books (conducted by the BBC in 2003), when the series wasn't even complete. And that doesn't include the games, spin-offs and Pottermore itself. It spawned debates, brought up questions and, for many of my classmates, made reading popular.

And these were the covers for children!

I was about 10 years old when I was first given a copy of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's stone in an attempt to encourage my reading habit and give me something new to read that was suitable for my age group while still being challenging. Let me tell you, that is something that is difficult to achieve. I devoured that book and when I discovered that three had already been published at that point I may have (read 'did') made myself a bit of a pest during book fairs and trips to the bookshops, absolutely begging my parents to let me have the second book at the very least. After all, at this point I had no pocket money and my birthday was too far away.

Fast forward to Christmas and I had apparently been successful, because not only did I receive Chamber of Secrets but I was given all three books at once in a boxed set, and instantly handed my single copy to my little sister so that she could start her own discovery of Harry Potter and the world of Hogwarts that I had come to know and love. Her journey took a very different turn than mine, but we will get into that later.

Those three were the only books in the series that I did not directly buy myself and in a way, I am grateful for that because it meant that when I bought each book, I was buying it for myself and nobody else. They were my property. The journeys I had with these characters were mine. I didn't have to share them. I still did, but that was only because my siblings were only starting to discover why I loved the series so much and I wanted to talk to someone about it. In time, they bought their own copies and stopped borrowing mine.

I grew up with Harry, Ron and Hermione, eventually overtaking them in terms of age. But at no point when exploring their world through their eyes did I start getting annoyed at them because I was older than they were and felt I knew better. I may not have known anything about fighting a magical war and having a powerful wizard getting ready to kill me whenever I let my guard down. But I knew the struggles of school, how a teacher could make or break your desire to learn, the effort to find friends I could trust and the difficulty of living up to other people's expectations, no matter your age.

The last book was published in 2007 just before I left for university, and the last film was released in 2011, just after I had completed my undergraduate degree. I said goodbye to Harry at the same time I was saying goodbye to some pretty important stages in my life and that sense of endings and beginnings stayed with me for a long time.

But as we all know, time does not stand still. It moves on, twisting and turning without any regard for what we were or where we could end up. I am now 24, and rapidly approaching my 25th birthday. It has been almost three years since I last picked up a Harry Potter book and many more since I read the entire series from beginning to end. Life has carried on, but Hogwarts and the Boy-who-lived have been travelling alongside me in many different guises. I own a couple of Harry Potter games. I am part of Pottermore. I have plans to travel to see Harry Potter World with my sister at some point.

But all of this has made me wonder, what was it about Harry Potter that touched us so? Was it the fact that this mistreated little boy was someone special that appealed to us? Was it the thought of a magical world beyond us that caught our attention? Was it something to do with the author and how she treated us through her writing? Or, dare I ask, was it simply the fact that it came at the right time, when the Internet was growing and becoming more commonplace thereby allowing fans to connect across a global scale?

Creative Genius or Lucky Hack?

I love analysing and picking things apart, so now I am taking this moment to set myself a challenge; to read through the entire Harry Potter series and write about my thoughts and feelings book by book. I may mention films occasionally but this will be very much centred on what made me a fan at the start. Now that I know what's ahead and a lot of background information, what do I notice about the characters and the events surrounding them? Do I understand where everyone is coming from or do I still think someone is making the wrong choice? What do I notice about the writing itself and how does it change as the series goes on?

But most importantly, do I still have the same love for the world that J.K Rowling created that I did when I finished that first book all those years ago? Does it deserve a place in my adult heart or is it something that should be looked back on with a sense of nostalgia?

I don't know the answers but hopefully I can uncover something new on this journey and I invite you to pick up your wands, solemnly swear you are up to no good and come with me as I re-discover the world of Harry Potter!

Looking Beyond the Obvious

Creativity comes in many guises. For some, it comes from having an idea and running with it as much as you think should be possible. It involves thought, development, reconsideration and, occasionally, running with a gut instinct. For writers, this instinct can sometimes come from a simple knowledge of a character or place, and sometimes from their own experiences or mood at the time. JK Rowling has famously said that she had considered killing off Ron Weasley during a dark moment of writing Harry Potter, but eventually decided against it and stuck with her original plan to keep the main trio alive.

However, not every creative process starts off with an original idea. Sometimes that spark comes from someone else. You see a film or read a book and suddenly a thought appears. Maybe it’s curiosity as to what was happening in a missing scene. Or trying to understand a character’s motivation for certain actions. Extra scenes have been placed in The Hunger Games movies for just this reason, adding something that was lost in media translation. A lot of this creativity comes from fans who explore these different avenues through writing, artwork or debate with other fans, trying to understand and add new layers, or indeed, new worlds for these products that caught their attention.

I came across one such example while browsing Youtube a few months ago. It was a video that someone had created for Rise of the Brave Tangled Dragons. It was essentially a (pretty impressive) ‘trailer’ that had been created using clips from Rise of the Guardians, How to Train Your Dragon, Tangled and Brave.

For those of you who do not recognise these titles, these are four CGI animated films from Dreamworks, Disney and Pixar. They have four very different plots, have very different settings and have very different characters. However, there is one thing that they have in common.

The protagonists are teenagers.

Automatically this leads me back to YA fiction and the points that I set out there about finding identities and universality, so I will try not to repeat it here although some points may be mentioned. But I was curious and explored the Internet a bit and it turned out that this amalgamation was not the product of a few individuals who seemed to think it was a great idea. This seemed to be an official fandom of its own with people posing different theories on how the four protagonists could meet, why they were together, what they could possibly do and how they would react to each other.

I will admit to being a bit stumped. After all, with any type of crossover, there is usually a core reason to join these characters together. Two uber-crossovers that I adore are Roommates and its spin-off Girls Next Door. Roommates began with a few comics involving Jareth from Labyrinth and Erik (The Phantom) from Phantom of the Opera having a few drinks and mourning over their status as ‘villains’ and the loss of their love interests. This eventually escalated into the two moving into a flat together and becoming friends with James Norrington (Pirates of the Caribbean) and Javert (Les Miserables), two military men who are considered ‘anti-heroes’ by canon. Crossovers happen frequently in these two comics but at the core was the same question: What was it about these characters that appealed to us so and was there more to them than what was originally portrayed?

So, what was at the core of this teenage, CGI love-fest? Why were people at one point or another so taken with the idea that these four characters should be together and generally do awesome hero-type things as a group? Was it simply that they were animated in a similar way? That they were teenagers? What connected them?

After a bit of shuffling around, I finally came across an answer. It was a document, hastily thrown together, detailing exactly why (this person at least) considered ‘The Big Four’ (as they are also known) to be logical. A lot of it involved gushing over the characters but one thing that struck me was the idea that ‘Each of the characters teaches us something.’

So what lessons can we learn from Hiccup, Jack, Rapunzel and Merida?

Follow me and find out.

Trust me, I'm the Doctor!

A few rules before we get started. Before exploring what ‘The Big Four’ teach, it is necessary to look at them individually. I will be examining them based on the context of their films, and adding a few personal observations along the way. This is by no means an exhaustive list and is entirely based upon my own opinion so if you have any views of your own, I would love to hear from you.

So where best to start than with the character who started it all?

The Inventor

Don't let him fool you. This guy tamed a DRAGON!

Name: Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III

Movie: How to Train Your Dragon

Age: 15/16? (it’s never made clear)

Hair: Brown

Eyes: Green

Hiccup’s story is basically one of self-discovery and forging your own path much like any YA book. He is not like the other Vikings in his village of Berk and he really REALLY wants to be. It is only a chance meeting with the mysterious Night Fury that makes him realise that the acceptable is not always right and that right is not always considered acceptable.

Hiccup himself is one of my favourite characters on this list. He’s intelligent, snarky, thinks outside the box and isn’t afraid to try new things. He’s considered weak and scrawny by Viking standards, even if he is about the same size as the other teenagers of his village, but he’s constantly trying to make up for those shortcomings by inventing ways around it.

One of the biggest strengths of Hiccup is his ability to think. He doesn’t accept things as they stand and is constantly looking for ways to solve problems. He can’t throw a bollard? He invents a machine that will. A dragon cannot fly? He finds a way to do it.

He’s faced with a hideously giant dragon that is about to destroy the majority of warriors from his village, including his father? He will use every trick he knows to defeat it, using his brain, rather than his brawn.

So, does that mean that the lesson here is about the power of brain over brawn? Well, no. If it was, there would be no need for Toothless who is considered to be a superior species of dragon. There is a time and a place for both strength of mind and strength of body.

Hiccup is very different to his fellow Vikings. He sees things in a different way. He does things in a different way. He traps a dragon….and lets it go. None of these things are accepted or appreciated by the other Vikings and he is consistently told to stop ‘all of this’ (with accompanying gestures towards all of him). But by maintaining that curiosity and creativity that everyone so despises, he discovers something amazing and becomes more than just another Viking from Berk.

To me, the lesson that is to be learned from Hiccup is simple. Everyone has different talents. They may be different and unappreciated now but there is a place for everyone. You just need to find the opportunity and take the risk.

The Dreamer

Rapunzel: The Ultimate Jack-of-all-trades

Name: Rapunzel

Age: 18

Hair: Blonde [(then brown)]

Eyes: Green

Rapunzel has lived in a tower all her life and only has one real desire; to see what the floating lights that appear on the horizon every year actually mean. Like Hiccup, it is a chance meeting that finally provides an opportunity to do something about it and, despite being forbidden to do so, she goes to fulfil a dream that will change everything.

To my surprise, Rapunzel was actually the most difficult character to understand. She spends much of Tangled being rather cheerful, compassionate and gung-ho about everything and honestly, that doesn’t really change. So what does her story involve?

Like Hiccup, Rapunzel’s is a story of discovery, not only about who she is but WHAT she is. She spends a lot of the film uncertain about things and more than a bit nervous because of how Gothel has treated her and is a classic example of an emotional abuse victim. But she is still curious about the world and desperate to be a part of it and to experience it for herself. Despite everything she has gone through, she remains optimistic and gets excited about experiencing new things, no matter how nervous she feels.

Rapunzel is possibly the ultimate example of what teenagers go through as they grow up. She has to learn to not only become her own person, but to make her own choices and to do something about her dreams and desires. Unlike the rest of the Four, she has to make a very difficult and deliberate decision to start her journey and to brace herself to do what she wants for once. The rest more or less find themselves in the middle of their journeys without making that deliberate first step.

However, for me the ultimate lesson that I learned from Rapunzel came from her optimism. When it looked like she and Flynn were going to drown, hope came from the light in her hair. And when her heart was broken and Gothel had taken her back to the tower, hope came in the form of the sun: a promise that she had a family who loved her and wanted her.

To me, Rapunzel herself reminds me that even when things look the darkest, hope can always be found, although it might not always appear in the way you expect.

The Princess

The love-child of Hawkeye and Black Widow



Name: Merida dunBroch

Age: 16

Hair: Red

Eyes: Blue

Merida is possibly one of the more childish characters in this group. She hates being a princess and hates what it involves. Why bother learning about public speaking and decorum when all she wants is to ride through the glens, firing arrows into the sunset? So when she discovers she is to be the ‘Prize’ in a marriage contest between  three clans, she takes matters into her own hands, never dreaming that ‘changing her Fate’ would almost lead to tragedy.

I have talked about Merida before so I will try not to repeat myself here. Suffice to say I like her the least of all these characters. She does grow on me after a while but it does take a very VERY long time for me to reach that point. Having said that, I think she’s the one who grows the most.

Yes she’s a bit of a free spirit who knows her own mind. But unlike Rapunzel, Merida knows her mind a little bit too much and fails to see how her actions might affect everyone around her. Granted she does want to calmly explain her side of things to her mother but just cannot find the opportunity to do it. And when things blow up in her face, she tries to find a solution and make everything right again, even if it takes a while for her to admit responsibility. And how does she find that solution?

Not by drawing on what she knows and likes, but by drawing on what she’s learned from her mother.

Yes. Pixar has just given us a princess who is teaching us about the value of education. Let that sink in for a moment.

But this isn’t the only thing Merida teaches. With her also comes a lesson about the value of perspective and communication. So much could have been avoided if Merida had actually spoken to her mother and so much was resolved by finally seeing things from another perspective and telling the clans, and her parents, how much they were actually valued.

Coupled with what we learn from Rapunzel, we learn that chasing our dreams is certainly important, but sometimes those dreams are not what’s best for us or others, and we have to learn to recognise the difference.

The Joker

Speak softly and carry a large stick.

Name: Jack Frost

Age: 17 (at least in appearence. Actual age: 317)

Hair: White

Eyes: Blue

Jack Frost is one of the oldest characters on this list and certainly the most unusual. He has been around for centuries, creating snow, ice and everything that makes Winter fun. But he is also invisible to everyone but other legendary spirits, none of whom seem to give him the time of day. Surely becoming a Guardian will change all that. But the question remains, is this a job that Jack is suited for?

The fourth and final member of our group is also one of the more surprising members of the Four in that one of my biggest problems with him is at a production level, rather than a narrative one. I love Chris Pine. I really do. But in no universe does he sound like a 17 year old boy, no matter how good a job he does.

But back to the character himself.

Like the rest of this group, Jack’s story is one of self-discovery. But unlike Hiccup or Rapunzel who are discovering who they are, Jack’s focus is on who he was. Who he used to be before he became the Spirit of Winter, in the hopes that somehow this will explain why he was created and why he exists.

I mentioned earlier that most of the group do not really choose when they start their journeys and Jack is the ultimate example. It’s not so much that he needs to find his place in the universe as it is that he needs to understand why he ended up there.

One of his strongest points is the way he treats children. Yes, he is the Guardian of Fun but that never comes at the expense of a child’s safety. He is light-hearted without being irresponsible. Towards the beginning, a brute of a girl is hit with a snowball and it looks like she is going to harm the children who threw it. Jack’s response? Throw another one that will magically let her lighten up enough to have fun and make friends. Yes, he does lead Jamie into a fun but pretty risky looking sleigh ride, but watch Jack. He is always beside Jamie, helping him to dodge people, cars and anything else that could seriously hurt him. Sure he misses the sofa which crashes into the child, but the result is a lost tooth and nothing more.

But the main plot of the story focuses on Jack’s inability to be seen. 300 years more or less alone is tough to get over and Jack does struggle with the idea of being part of a team. It is quite clear that Jack is a sociable individual considering how he interacts with others, but he acts alone a lot of the time. It is only when he allows himself to be part of a team (a team that includes some of the children he has been protecting) that Pitch is defeated. In a world where we are constantly told to look out for ourselves, to do things ourselves and to solve everything ourselves, it’s nice to see a character who embodies the need for people and acknowledges that sometimes it’s OK to ask for help.

I think that’s the main lesson we can take from Jack. Sometimes it’s easier to be alone. But it is also vitally important to let other people into our lives and not let ourselves become isolated because that way, when we fall, there will always be someone to help us back up.

The ‘Big Four’ do teach us some important lessons about how we view ourselves and others, but not every lesson that they have to teach can be confined to a single character or film. As I’m sure you have been able to tell, there is a significant amount of comparison and shared experience between these four which I feel are just as important to examine as the ones that are unique to the characters and films.

The Class

Oh yeah. Our eyes reveal our badassery

I have said before that one of the most common themes in YA fiction comes from the idea of self-discovery and that is no different when it comes to films centred on teenagers. Hiccup, Rapunzel, Merida and Jack all have to learn who they can be and to be comfortable in their own skin. You see this best in Hiccup during the course of his journey. Not only does he become more vocally confident but when he isn’t wearing his long furry vest, he looks more confident (and a little bit taller).

And the prize for Best Facial Expression goes to...

In order to make this discovery, each of them learns to take a chance and to be open to new experiences, but most also learn to recognise what the consequences of those experiences might be, a trait which is best illustrated by comparing what happened to Rapunzel and Merida after they disobeyed their mothers.

At the end of the day, all four of these characters learn the importance of trust and applying it to the right people. Hiccup learns to trust Toothless which ultimately leads him to learn to trust in his own judgement and gain confidence in himself. Merida learns to trust that her mother’s actions are the result of love and do ultimately have a reason behind them. Jack has to learn to trust the guardians to take care of him and watch his back. Rapunzel not only needs to learn to trust the world, but also has the unenviable task of realising who is worthy of her trust and when to recognise that it has been misplaced.

However, it must be understood that trust goes both ways and that is something that each of the films recognises and makes a point of acknowledging. Often this comes in form of a character’s acceptance of responsibility. I have touched on this with Merida, but it also applies to the others as well. Merida learns to trust her mother, but must in turn make herself worthy of her kingdom’s trust which only occurs when she recognises her responsibilities to Scotland. Jack officially acknowledges his responsibility to the children of the world (something he was doing anyway) after he learns to trust his teammates, in order to ensure that they, in their turn, can trust him. Hiccup balances his responsibilities to his people with his new responsibilities with the dragons and somehow bring them together only after the bond with Toothless occurs, while Rapunzel’s responsibilities change from Gothel (her mother) to Flynn (her boyfriend. Ahhh symbolism) as their trust in her changes.

But to me, the main lesson that comes from these characters is much more straight-forward.

The truth will always set you free no matter how big or small it might be. It may not be something you’re prepared for, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have the ability to recognise it and handle the ramifications that come with it. You are capable of so much more than you know, and it’s not always necessary to do it alone.

Say what you like, but I think this is something that we could be reminded of from time to time.