But...If the criticism applies to every character why specifically mention Rey?
To be fair, 'reacting to the plot' is surprisingly common, I believe that's what 'protagonist' means, whith antagonist meaning 'one who changes the plot'
The reason people give Kirito **** is that he's not just boring but every in series character want him
She didn't really 'defeat' Kylo Ren, not only did she escape being unable to save her friend, but Renny boy was deliberately wounding himself for his dark side
That still doesn't mean Mikasa is much better off honestly, as again, Mikasa was the only Asian character and was being depicted as near flawless
Errr, I'm not talking about KR's protagonist, not to mention he's not feminine, just either clumsy or cocky depending on his split personality
Jolyne deliberately set herself on fire and didn't even flinch while doing so. Hell, Japan complained she was too manly, so Jojo miiight nit be the best example
But Rey doesn't have typically masculine traits either iirc. And here's a fun fact which might explain why she's a woman in the story
Daisy Ridley
Ridley Scott
Alien
Sigourney Weaver
Ripley
Ridley Scott has outright said the only reason Ripley was female was because Sigourney Weaver was the best actor/actress for the role in his eyes, meaning Ripley could have been a male character aswell if the male actors were seen as more fitting
I just mentioned Rey because she's the first character that comes to mind when it came to thinking of a poorly written female lead. Because Rey is the core inspiration I look at as far as what NOT to do when I write Calliope, so she's very fresh on my mind. It's the same reason I mentioned Mikasa and Ryuko, because it was fresh on my mind based on what you'd said. To be fair, I could have named better examples for good female characters: Samus Aran (ignoring Other M), Ripley (Alien Series), The Major (GitS), Alita, the entire cast of Madoka, the entire female cast of Evangelion, etc...
Anyway,
To be fair, 'reacting to the plot' is surprisingly common, I believe that's what 'protagonist' means, whith antagonist meaning 'one who changes the plot'
Yeah, but 'changing the plot' isn't reacting to it. Characters that are reactionary to the plot are usually not as interesting as character that drive the plot. Unless the story is written to make them reactionary, and even still. I was thinking of Stein's Gate, but for example, even then, the MC's actions are what set the plot in motion. I guess Shinji is a good reactionary character, but that's cause the story is written around that principle. His entire character is about him being someone lacking drive and self-esteem, thus, being reactionary works for his character, as his entire character arc is about him coming to terms with himself. And even still, the events in EVA happen as a result of the characters actions and conscious decisions.
Typically, for monomyths, reactionary characters don't work. That's lazy writing. Adventure very rarely finds someone, and springs them from their boring and monotonous lives. More than that though, you destroy the ability to give the reader/viewer a chance to understand your character and motivations when you make them fully reactionary. This is why such a scenario simply doesn't work for Rey, especially with how seriously SW takes itself. Jojo can do it, because Jojo is very tongue in cheek, and campy. But look at Naruto, or One Piece for example. In OP Luffy is literally out in search of adventure, that is his character drive. In Naruto, the very first chapter/episode instantly gives us a very good window into WHO Naruto is, what his motivations are, and what he seeks in life. Not only that, but his actions are what push the plot forward. Hunter x Hunter is similar too, Gon sets off on adventure, without even telling us much about his bio, the very fact that he left his island to search for his father instantly tells us a lot about his character. If Gon were reactionary, and he was somehow thrust upon a situation where he was out and about, and over the course just happened upon his father, his character would be vastly different, just that subtle detail in changing his character completely changes how he's percieved, and it instantly makes him far less relatable, as we don't really know all that much about him, he's just there, and the plot moves around him... and that's soooo boooring.
You can even take this back to the classics, which is where monomyths come from. Odysseus in the Odyssey, has a very clear goal in mind, to get back home, and this core drive instantly tells us a lot about him, and makes him easier to connect to. The original SW also did this, the first act of the movie is very slow and well-paced, giving the audience a change to learn about Luke, because Luke IS thrust upon adventure, however, before he even sets out, we're given plenty of dialogue and screentime to get a chance to see what sort of person he is, and what his motivations are. He wants to leave Tatooine because he hates it there, and wants to be a pilot, he wants to follow in his father's footsteps, he has doubts about himself, he wants to find and rescue Leia, honestly, cause he's attracted to her (there's that sexuality).
And look, you can't use prophesies and myths to compensate for a lack of character. Look at Neo in the Matrix, he's actually a very poor and boring character. He has NO clear motivation, or personality. We honestly don't know what he truly wants, he only saves the world.... because... he's supposed to. He just looks cool while doing it. Morphius in fact is a much better and more interesting character than Neo, because we KNOW a lot more about him, and can related to him a lot more. Neo, just has the whole plot revolve around him. I think Neo is another good example of why reactionary character don't work in Monomyths.
And why character driven stories are the best. Because PEOPLE are interesting, far more than structured adventures where you know how things will turn out in the end.
The reason people give Kirito **** is that he's not just boring but every in series character want him
We yeah, that's the point. Him being wanted by all the girls in the series would me sense if it was justified. For example, this works in the Monogatari series with Araragi because in there it's kinda tongue-in-cheek, and as a sort of parody of that genre and how poorly written that trope is.
But take for example if there was an explained reason for why Kirito is such a lady-killer. If he was a character known for being very seductive with the opposite sex, then it wouldn't be so bad. Dracula for example is ALSO a lady-killer, but part of Dracula is that he's supposed to have insane seduction power that make him irresistible to women. Look at Lust in FMA, no one had much of a problem with her being good at attracting men, because it was an over character trait. Same could be said for any Femme Fatale ever, like Fey in Bebop for example.
Making Kirito inexplicably good at attracting women, is the same as making him inexplicably good at anything else he does. They both stem from the same problem.
She didn't really 'defeat' Kylo Ren, not only did she escape being unable to save her friend, but Renny boy was deliberately wounding himself for his dark side
I could go on more about this, but I'll leave this for now, as this a thread all onto itself. But the way all this was conveyed was very poor. And for all intents and purposes, Fynn was saved, and Rey accomplished a feat she should have not been able to pull off given the massive skill gap between the two. Wounded or not. Ren had full range of motion, and this was shown. And, this was also the person do did a force stasis on a blaster bolt, him being unable to defeat Rey, and in fact, getting scarred by her is an asspull to end all asspull, especially with that awfully convenient rift that separated the two mid battle. That's just bad writing.
That still doesn't mean Mikasa is much better off honestly, as again, Mikasa was the only Asian character and was being depicted as near flawless
No, I agree. Mikasa is not a very well-written character. I admittedly could have given much better examples. She just sprung to mind cause you mentioned AoT. That said, she's still much better written than Rey. She at least has some character to her.
Errr, I'm not talking about KR's protagonist, not to mention he's not feminine, just either clumsy or cocky depending on his split personality
Jolyne deliberately set herself on fire and didn't even flinch while doing so. Hell, Japan complained she was too manly, so Jojo miiight nit be the best example
I honestly haven't watched the new Rider. And I've only just finished Battle Tendency with Jojo. Sorry. But, you get the point I was trying to make.
But Rey doesn't have typically masculine traits either iirc. And here's a fun fact which might explain why she's a woman in the story
Daisy Ridley
Ridley Scott
Alien
Sigourney Weaver
Ripley
Ridley Scott has outright said the only reason Ripley was female was because Sigourney Weaver was the best actor/actress for the role in his eyes, meaning Ripley could have been a male character as well if the male actors were seen as more
Not entirely. Ripley has plenty of feminine traits in the Alien series. Especially in 2 and 3, where she takes on a motherly role. It's this contrast in opposite character traits that adds depth to her character and makes her a lot more interesting. Feminine doesn't necessary mean girly or cute, there are plenty of feminine traits that are a lot less overt. Think of it as a sort of Yin and Yang. With certain traits being one side, and their polar opposite on the other. In Taoist philosophy, everyone has traits from both sides, regardless of gender, and in fact, masculinity is yang, and femininity is yin. Things like empathy, caretaking, and so forth can be seen as feminine, while rashness and impulse more masculine. But notice how in people, none of these are exclusive doted to one gender?
This is what I mean when I refer to Rey. Ripley shows a certain tenderness and caring for the young girl when she meets her in Aliens, and she even takes on a very motherly role. Rey on the other hand, only shows masculine traits in here character. Even the way she walks and carries herself, and the way in which she fights all show strong masculine postures. She's also devoid of any sexuality toward any of her male counterparts. While, the OT and the Prequels, sexual chemistry between genders was pretty much everywhere, hell as I mentioned above, Luke was initially driven into action BY sexuality. And that's a very human thing. Something anyone can relate to. Attraction, affection, passion, etc... all of these are emotions people can relate to, and by writing a character devoid of any of those, you write a character that's hard to relate to, and thus hard to comprehend. Making a character revolve around the plot, rather than drive it, takes away your opportunity to show these traits in a character.
Anyway, you don't have to reply to all this if you don't want to. I actually gotta get back to drawing, and I know it's rather long, but I've spent a lot of time studying about all this, and thinking about it all for the stories I wanna tell. I may not know everything, and I might actually be wrong in some assumptions, but these are the conclusions I've come to when listening to people critique and analyze various films, and dissecting various stories to their core components and showing what works and what doesn't.
