The best way to write a story: Characters vs. Message

[SynjoDeonecros]

Since a lot of the Sonic threads seem to go off track a bit with Transformers talk, I figured I should throw in an unusual anecdote I encountered on a TF board, just recently:

The thread in question was on personal opinions on how well or poorly the shows Beast Wars and Beast Machines were, and how they held up over the years. Having been a longtime fan of the former series and a huge detractor of the latter, I gave my two cents, saying that Beast Machines derailed too many of Beast Wars' characters, and was too preachy with its message of techno-organic balance and instrumentality vs. free will, for me to like it. This one guy responds, saying the complete opposite: Beast Wars was too preachy, because its villains were "doing evil to be evil", whereas Beast Machines' villains were doing evil to further the philosophical debate the show was based on.

Yes, he said that: in his mind, what makes a show preachy is not the message being forced on the viewers, or how it's presented, but how evil the villains are, and whether or not they have a reason for being evil. I don't get it, either, and the more I debated with him on these points, the less he made sense to me; in his mind, characters should not be the focus of a show, and in fact doing so would "over-humanize" them for viewers, which is a very bad thing, in his mind. He explicitly stated he hated "real" characters. Instead, he views them as mere tools that should be used to further the message the writer wants to get through that SHOULD be the focus of the show; no message, no story. In his mind, the villains of Beast Machines were "flawed" and less stereotypical than the villains of Beast Machines, because whereas the latter had no unifying message or goal to work toward, and were defined by their own personalities and desires (which, somehow, made them "evil for the sake of evil"), the former were all defined by slightly different loyalties that were all based on the singular philosophical debate that formed the basis of the story. And, while the characters need to be distinct enough to be "well crafted tools", their own personalities and desires should all be catered solely on their side of the message, and shouldn't overtake the message being stated.

Has anyone ever heard of this kind of writing style? Where a story should be about the message the writer wants to be told instead of the characters and places, or how said characters should be used as tools to push that message instead of relatable, living beings? I've always been taught that the opposite is true; that you should formulate the story around the characters and locations and events, and work any message you want to put into it around them. What's your opinion on this kind of writing? And have you seen other writers do this kind of thing?

[BobR]

The type of story your describing, where it's the message rather than the characters that's paramount, is called a parable. Most parables deal with a moral or spiritual condition and so most Bible stories tend to be of that type. However, it's possible to extend the description to any story where the characters are facing a questionable dilemma with the result based on "what's right" according to the storyteller. A good test for a parable is to replace the characters with anyone, and see if it still conveys the same message. The outcome of a parable is always the same, no matter which character plays a role. We know nothing about them or why they do what they do except "it's the right thing to do." Case in point, everyone knows the story about Moses and the Ark.(*)

However, I find that stories with the most effect, and thus most impact, are ones where we're made to feel for a character, to understand why they do what they do, and to empathize with them. The movie Avatar actually combines both story forms, and you can see how popular it is. First there is the parable, the moral dilemma of what the big corporations are doing to the Na'vi and their world. Then we have the individual's story, where we learn about Jake and why he's made to feel the way he does. The story tells about what prompts him to disobey orders and take the high moral road. Would the movie still have the same outcome if it was the Colonel as the avatar? I don't think so.



(*)Yes, I know, it's Noah and the Ark. But you'd be surprised how many people won't catch that little bit of switcheroo. Whether the character was Moses or Noah is immaterial to the story, thus it's a parable.

[Lord Exor]

Neither is preeminent in Beast Machines. The show balanced character development--that's right I said development, not derailment--with a plethora of philosophical messages and allegories. As a Transfan, I believe both Beast Wars and Beast Machines represent the apex of Transformers storytelling--although I possess an increased affinity for the latter series, as it happens to be one of, if not my favorite TV show(s).

Beast Machines took well-established, familiar characters and thrust them into a nightmarish, grim dystopia. Whenever someone summons the character derailment argument, I always make a point to encourage that individual to watch "The Reformatting" again; Optimus Primal and his Maximals begin with personalities congruous with what was previously beheld. As the series progressed and the characters became exposed to the grim actuality of their new environment, they reacted. A lot of them manifested depressing, sometimes self-deprecating emotions (particularly in the case of Primal). And why wouldn't they? Their entire race has been slain by a mad egomaniacal despot, their home planet is ruled by that same despot, and they're being hunted down every waking moment of their lives by innumerable armies of mindless drones. I don't care who you are, a situation like that would disturb anyone. Furthermore, people don't remain stagnant their whole lives. Characters that retain the same core beliefs and personalities throughout their entire lives aren't usually very realistic (unless you're a malignant narcissist or a sociopath) especially when those characters are put through the sorts of harrowing, oppressive scenarios present in Beast Machines.

Beast Machines was plotted out in advance--the only Transformers animated series to have been created that way--leaving the show with a finely polished arc that ultimately delivered a message. However, I wouldn't go so far as to claim that the characters were ancillary to that message. No character was really written as a metaphor, and had clear development arcs that didn't serve the overarching message at all. In that sense, I believe the show exemplifies BobR's point concerning stories that convey a message and contain "real" characters at the same time. If I were to use Beast Machines as an example for anything, I would use it to pose the question of balance between protagonist and antagonist.

Clearly, Megatron had an exorbitant advantage over the Maximals throughout the entire series, to the point where the heroes are prevented from making any significant headway up until the very last episode. Even then, Primal required a deus ex machina in the form of divine intervention to defeat the overwhelming power of Megatron. I personally enjoy that, but at what point does it go too far? Is it better to have a level playing field, or is slight unbalance preferable?

Perhaps this inquiry is too tangential, and requires its own topic.

[SynjoDeonecros]

I severely disagree with your assessment of "Beast Machines": having lived with a war veteran with PTSD and having gone through a significant shake-up in my own life, I can tell you that the swift and radical departure of the Maximals' personalities is TOO radical and swift to be believable; the "Will of the Oracle vs. Technological Perfection" debate was severely heavy-handed and abusive, with virtually 3/4 of the dialog dedicated to diatribes for it; and the show opened up way too many plot holes with its own plot and previous continuity to be easily reconciled, especially with rumors that the dev. team were ordered NOT to bring any continuity from BW back into the show.

But that's not the issue, here; I only brought the show up, because the individual being discussed used it as an example of how his theory that a parable-style of writing is superior to a character-oriented style, which he considered Beast Wars to be, especially when comparing the villains - in his opinion, the Vehicons were more "flawed" and less "stereotypical" than the "psychopathic" Predacons, because every action and personality the Vehicons had were aimed toward furthering the parable, whereas the Predacons had no parable to follow, and thus were random and 'doing evil to be evil'.

That, too, I disagree with; by his own admission, the Vehicons were all defined in personality and action by one single trait: blind loyalty to Megatron and his goals. Yes, he tried to make them more "unique" by distinguishing to whom or what their loyalties lie - Thrust was loyal to Megatron, Tankorr was loyal to Megatron's goals but not Megatron himself, Strika and Obsidian was loyal to Cybertron, which they considered Megatron a part of, and Jetstorm...he was just a cackling psychopath who loved to cause pain (which is ironic, considering that's exactly what he accused the Predacons of being, and what he claimed to hate about them) - but in my mind, all it does is show just how much they're defined by that loyalty, and how much that loyalty revolves in some way to Megatron and his goals. Can we really call them "more flawed" and "less evil" if their only definining attribute and ambition revolves around their side of the parable? There's even a heated discussion on the TF board this guy's on over just how much free will they had, considering Megs would often delete any decisions they made that he didn't like. In my opinion, that makes them more animate drones for Megs, not unique, flawed villains, of themselves. They don't come off as "real" to me, in any sense, just dull puppets with arbitrary "quirky" personalities to hide the fact that they're dull puppets.

With the Predcons, however, they actually had their own ambitions and goals, and would often have conflicts with themselves over them. To me, that makes all the difference; they weren't just "doing evil for the sake of evil", because they weren't working toward a unified goal, they had their reasons for doing what they were doing, As a result, the character and personality development seemed much more natural for them than with Beast Machines; Waspinator gradually became a pessimistic woobie, the more he got tired of being shot up, eventually culminating in his attempts to assert himself in the Predacon hierarchy near the end, Megs' increasing problems to find an alternate way of bringing about his own goals for Predacon supremacy without resorting to tampering with the time stream resulted in his growing madness, Tarantulas' defection from the Predacons to do his own thing was spurned on by his own mysterious goals and the growing presence of the Vok, which he hates, etc. It was a long, detailed process that showed them growing and evolving as characters, instead of having their personalities snap to something new within 5 seconds with little explanation (did we ever find out how Megs decided organics and free will were useless?).

What really confuses me about this assessment from him is that he claims Captain Planet was too preachy for him, because of the same "villains do evil to be evil" aspect he accused the Predacons of having, even though the show seemed to be catered to the kind of story structure he enjoys. My thoughts is that this is where he got that philosophy,a nd doesn't realize WHY the eco-villains in the show had no reason to pollute - as the representatives of the "wrong" side of the eco-friendly message the show was based on, they had to show that their side was wrong, and the only way Ted Turner could think of for doing that is to have them pollute for no other reason than they're villains. Because, y'know, having a villain do something because they're villains is a good way of showing how evil what they're doing is, itself, right? It's not like they couldn't give these villains motivations for their crimes that make them despicable. I think that's probably why so many Captain Planet "fans" like Looten Plunder and Hoggish Greedy as villains, so much; their capitalism gave them a reason to be pricks to the environment.

[Lord Exor]

I severely disagree with your assessment of "Beast Machines": having lived with a war veteran with PTSD and having gone through a significant shake-up in my own life, I can tell you that the swift and radical departure of the Maximals' personalities is TOO radical and swift to be believable

I never said the Maximals manifested PTSD; although PTSD symptoms vary from person to person depending on the consequences. I said they reacted to their environment and adapted accordingly, and while I'd love to debate the nuances of the Maximal characterizations, perhaps I should take that discussion someplace else. I would like to mention, however, that the Maximals experience plenty of drama and development that is superfluous to the message Beast Machines conveys.

That, too, I disagree with; by his own admission, the Vehicons were all defined in personality and action by one single trait: blind loyalty to Megatron and his goals. Yes, he tried to make them more "unique" by distinguishing to whom or what their loyalties lie - Thrust was loyal to Megatron, Tankorr was loyal to Megatron's goals but not Megatron himself, Strika and Obsidian was loyal to Cybertron, which they considered Megatron a part of, and Jetstorm...he was just a cackling psychopath who loved to cause pain (which is ironic, considering that's exactly what he accused the Predacons of being, and what he claimed to hate about them) - but in my mind, all it does is show just how much they're defined by that loyalty, and how much that loyalty revolves in some way to Megatron and his goals. Can we really call them "more flawed" and "less evil" if their only definining attribute and ambition revolves around their side of the parable? There's even a heated discussion on the TF board this guy's on over just how much free will they had, considering Megs would often delete any decisions they made that he didn't like. In my opinion, that makes them more animate drones for Megs, not unique, flawed villains, of themselves. They don't come off as "real" to me, in any sense, just dull puppets with arbitrary "quirky" personalities to hide the fact that they're dull puppets.

I'd agree with you in terms of the primary antagonist only. Megatron is 100% pure evil in Beast Machines, partaking in heinous activities that rank him among one of, if not arguably the most twisted Transformer(s) in the mythos. I'd have to disagree with regards to the other Vehicons however. How did Thrust's friendship with Jetstorm serve the parable? Why would drones with quirky personalities bother learning the meaning of friendship if they're all cookie-cutter metaphors? Obsidian and Strika weren't blindly loyal to anyone in particular, having to be reminded of the meaning of loyalty by Thrust. There was character development within the Vehicon ranks, they weren't only defined by servitude. Despite the fact that Megatron is my favorite character, I do feel bad for the Vehicon Generals; you're right, they didn't have a lot of control over their lives, and they were forced into fighting a war for a person that was only going to end up eating their sparks in the long run. They knew what was coming, and I'm certain they didn't enjoy the thought.

Megs' increasing problems to find an alternate way of bringing about his own goals for Predacon supremacy without resorting to tampering with the time stream resulted in his growing madness

What makes you think Megatron truly cared about his fellow Predacons? Sure, he spouted some rhetoric about it before trying to destroy Optimus Prime, but do you really believe that deep down, he cared about others beyond himself? And this brings me to my next point...

(did we ever find out how Megs decided organics and free will were useless?)

Megatron always hated free will. He always hated working with his troops. This is clearly evident throughout Beast Wars, where Megatron is shown to blatantly not care about his minions--even the loyal ones. He even experimented with drones in the form of Cyber Raptors; unfortunately he required a spark for the Transmetal II technology to fully function. Even with Dinobot II, Megatron expected his creation to obey him as a mindless puppet; and when he didn't, Megatron was furious.
As far as Megatron turning on both Predacon and Maximal alike through his "insane ambition", this was something predicted by the original Dinobot in "Maximal No More". So guess that makes sense after all, huh?

Finally, that leaves us with the hatred of organics. If you could provide me with quotes from Megatron lauding organics in Beast Wars, I'd be most appreciative. How are we to know Megatron enjoyed organics when the only "evidence" we have to support this lies with his delight concerning the power of his beast modes? Keyword there is power. That is something we know he appreciates, and given the nature of his situation on prehistoric Earth, a beast mode with power is quite a boon; yesss. After Megatron conquers Cybertron, he no longer requires a beast mode of course.

Alright, at this point, we've established that Megatron held no love of organics or organic life. But why did he loathe organics? This is simple to answer. Organic life represents chaos and strife, while machine-like precision and efficiency exemplify order and control. Megatron is now the leader of a New World Order on Cybertron, and as a dictator seemingly obsessed with structure and the rule of law (his of course), guess which one he's going to side with? There's no indication that Megatron's ambition wouldn't eventually reach this zenith in Beast Wars, so I don't see how anyone can claim this is character derailment. Megatron's diatribes concerning free will aren't developed out of any sort of dedication to an ideal; quite the contrary in fact, as he is clearly established as a hypocrite in the series--a point bolstered in Bob Skir's short story, "Singularity Ablyss". Megatron claims individuality is scandalous, yet refuses to relinquish his own when confronted with reintegration into the Allspark. His "single elegant machine" is an intricate characteristic of his own narcissism, megalomania, and extreme sense of personal individuality--ergo, all he really seeks is apotheosis. No different from his rantings in "Nemesis Part 2".

Is he a sympathetic villain? Hell no. He wasn't sympathetic in Beast Wars either though, so big deal. There's no grand dictum stating that antagonists need to be felt for, in either a parable or a character study. In Beast Machine's case, a preset character like Megatron just so happened to serve the message; he wasn't crafted around it. Palpatine is very similar to Beast Era Megatron, and yet Star Wars isn't a parable. It should also be noted that Marv Wolfman's original story outlines didn't involve the symbolism and philosophy that Bob Skir imbued it with later on.

[SynjoDeonecros]

Y'know what, I'm not even going to touch on any of your comments, because this isn't a Transformers board, and it's completely off topic. IGNORE BEAST MACHINES; I completely disagree with you on all your points, but this is not the place to talk about it. As I said, the only reason Beast Machines was even brought up, was because the person in question used it as an example of his theory that parable writing and using characters as tools to push the message is the only way of making good stories. Let's focus on that argument, and ignore where it came from, okay?

Back on topic, one aspect that the guy brought up that I'm particularly confused about is the concept that putting focus on the characters and giving them more development and personality than is needed to make them good tools to relay the parable of the story is "over-humanizing" them, which in his opinion is a bad thing.

I...I don't get this. I mean, it fits in with his assessment that characters are only to be used as tools for the proverb being told, but how far do you give personality and character development to someone in a story before you "over-humanize" them? Is that even possible? I mean, yeah, giving a villain too much sympathetic traits or backstory can ruin them as a villain and screw with the conflict in the story, but how far does the line have to be drawn before you cross it? From the way the guy was talking about it, it sounds like he feels anything past the bare bones personality and goals (all focused on the proverb, of course) is just too much. He even explicitly stated, on the TF forum, that he doesn't care for "real" characters (in this case, likely characters that are depicted with realistic emotions, personalities, and social interactions and problems).

That makes his statement about villains that do evil just to do evil being too preachy for him to like even more confusing, to me; it's clear, from that statement, that he DOESN'T like the simple characters, but the villains of Beast Machines are just as simple as the eco-villains are, or at least as simple as he accuses the Beast Wars villains of being, and he fully enjoys them. Maybe it's his fixation on the proverb being the only thing relevant to a story that's causing this contradiction, I dunno. Thoughts?

[The_Patman]

[Off topic post]

Please refrain from going off topic, as per board rules. I don't feel like giving out a formal warning just for one post, so please continue any Beast Machines conversation in a seperate topic.

I...I don't get this. I mean, it fits in with his assessment that characters are only to be used as tools for the proverb being told, but how far do you give personality and character development to someone in a story before you "over-humanize" them? Is that even possible? I mean, yeah, giving a villain too much sympathetic traits or backstory can ruin them as a villain and screw with the conflict in the story, but how far does the line have to be drawn before you cross it? From the way the guy was talking about it, it sounds like he feels anything past the bare bones personality and goals (all focused on the proverb, of course) is just too much. He even explicitly stated, on the TF forum, that he doesn't care for "real" characters (in this case, likely characters that are depicted with realistic emotions, personalities, and social interactions and problems).

That makes his statement about villains that do evil just to do evil being too preachy for him to like even more confusing, to me; it's clear, from that statement, that he DOESN'T like the simple characters, but the villains of Beast Machines are just as simple as the eco-villains are, or at least as simple as he accuses the Beast Wars villains of being, and he fully enjoys them. Maybe it's his fixation on the proverb being the only thing relevant to a story that's causing this contradiction, I dunno. Thoughts?

That's the way I see it as well. In my experience, I've always felt character-driven narratives were stronger compared to parables, but as BobR pointed out, combinations of the two definitely give the most impact. Aside from Avatar, I found another strong example that seems to combine the two is the recently released Heavy Rain for PlayStation 3. The characters in the game are really deep and empathetic, while at the same time, the overall story theme of "How far will you go to save someone you love?" is apparent throughout the narrative and basically puts the player in the moral "hot seat" so-to-speak. I genuinely felt responsible for the outcomes of the choices I made throughout the game, which is something no other game has done before with me.

[Everdreamer]

I believe that it's fine to get a message across as long as it does not interfere to much with the storytelling. When it starts to feel simply like a soap box show that is when it starts to loose its value. It is important to influence people to see things at a certain perspective, like what war can do to a person (Being in the military in general is really stress-inducing; I know because I was temporarily government property), what happens when you let pride or greed destroy something precious, why we shouldn't judge another person simply because they believe in something different or have a different lifestyle. But to keep things balanced it must also have an abundance of well-developed characters that are both unique in their own way and don't serve as just props, when the main story can still flow as stick to the main point, and include other moments that don't include making a point about certain issues. It is also best to avoid making it too obvious about what political party you side through the work- there are few things I hate worse in the cartoon world than someone using characters to advertise their party's views and messages.