HOME | DD

Description
Yeah, here we go again with another period where I use meme 'cause I need to spit something out.
And believe me, I begin softly.

For this one, it may be just an impression so I may be wrong but I still have this impression that when people highly praise certain lead fictional character as a strong character, it's rarely for the good reasons.
What do I mean by that ? Well apparently, the said character just have to be physically strong (ideally athletic) and tough, to kick asses more than reasonable, to be all-powerful or else to be a complete winner and get whatever he/she want at the end of the story or simply get-off scot-free from anything to get praised and highlighted like a god, whatever it's by the audience, the author(s) or inside the diegesi of the fiction story. If not, the said character is called wimpy, feeble, or simply a nobody.
An just the existence of the Chad vs Virgin Meme seems give me this impression.

In that case, two things :
— ONE, what I just described is a Gary Stu/Mary Sue, which are terms that I usually loathe for a start, but also should be criticized, shouldn't it ? And yet, there are also cases where an actually strong character (usually a female one) is unfairly called that way even though he/she is not that super-strong, super-skilled, powerful or even flawless (which is one of the reason I always loathe the Mary Sue term, by the way) but that's another debate.
— TWO, it may make the said character a strong/powerful person, but does it make him/her a strong character for all that.

In order to clarify my point of view, this is how I personally describe a actually strong character.
For a start, the said characters had to be proactive, which means they do anything in their power to face a conflict and overcome it as best as they can, even in the worst situation imaginable and even though they are not in position of strength. They're also not afraid the challenge the world around them and to face the consequences, and sometimes had to challenge themselves to go through an difficult situation — which has the beneficial effect to make them dynamic characters, adapting to their situation as the story goes on, growing up, learning things about the world around them or about themselves and better understanding them, reinforcing their strength, correcting their weaknesses, in short growing up as stronger characters.
In itself, there is nothing to do with being super-strong or having any super-powers if not every powers of the universe (the character in question can just as well appear weak and powerless, even disabled and still remains a strong character), just showing a minimum of initiative, problem-solving and determination, doing their bit.

I'll add that the strong character is not necessary a complete winner, it can happen to fail and even more than once. But it's not such a big deal as long as he tried, did his best and LEARN from his failure. After all, nothing ventured nothing gained and sometimes failure is the best teacher we can have. Anyway, I would largely prefer to get involved into a character attempting the impossible in order to resolve a problem at the risk of screwing-up rather into another character that doesn't do anything for himself even his own life depended on it and reveals to be of no use at all.
Especially since there's still a middle ground between winning every time with one hand tied behind his back and not knowing their ass from their elbow.

To give you an example, I have no problem to consider a princess/damsel in distress character as "strong"... if she doesn't spend 90% of her time to sitting down, waiting for their problems resolve themselves and letting every stuff happens to her without ever reacting to that and most importantly, doesn't stupidly sabotage every chance and opportunity to bettering their situation or taking any advantage.
Trust me, it's boring enough to focus on a character who doesn't do anything on his/her own for him/herself or even try something for him/herself and always choose inaction whatever the circumstances but if he/she is also dumb enough to shoot him/herself in the foot, drop it ! I won't get involved anymore in his/her story (but again, that another debate I keep for a next meme).
The fact remains that if you show me the princess/damsel in distress doing anything in her power to overcome or get herself out of a situation where she is supposed to be powerless like standing up against her ennemies, planning a back-up plan or simply send a S.O.S. unknow to them, in short showing a minimum of problem-solving, I will have no problem to consider her as a strong character.
Another example, you can show me a slave to whom we inflict the worst treatment as a strong character, if you show me he not only survives to his horrible treatment and becomes hardened but do anything at his power make his situation or his comrades' situation better, either pacifically or by starting a revolution and fighting for freedom.
If in the contrary, you show me a character with literally free hands, more valid powers and opportunities to overcome a conflict supposed to give the said character in trouble, but never takes advantage of it to do so, would rather waste every opportunities, let anyone else resolve every of his/her trouble for him/her or simply does nothing but making his/her situation worse to the point of letting any of his/her avowed enemies take the advantage on him/her, I would hardly consider this kind of character as strong. And I won't get more involved in his/her story than with a doormat.
To this point, I've talked about lead characters, the ones I'm supposed to root for, to get ivolved with their stories. But it's also works for the antagonists and mostly the bad guys, that I should consider as a threat for the protagonists. If they don't make any effort to achieve their goal, if their plans lack ambition and perspective or consistency, if they don't know exactly what they want and are dumb enough to be fooled over and over again by their adverseries and mostly with the same trick 'cause they never learn from their previous failures or mistakes, I will hardly take them seriously or give them credit as antagonists or villains, even if they redeem themselves. Purely and simply because I would hardly consider them as strong characters in this way, so considering them as strong antagonists/villains. And also because I can hardly take seriously a character so dumb that whatever they do have no fricking sense and are unable to get a clue even if it was right under his/her nose.

The point is that a strenght of fictional character is not so determined by how strong, skilled or powerful he/she is, but rather how he/she handles facing adversity and other obstacles, how he handles a thorny situation even little power at his/her disposal.

And then, in a case where a lead character fails to get out of trouble all by him/herself even with the best willingness, it can be still considered as a strong character, maybe not for their abilities to come out victorious of a conflict but rather for their ideals or morals.
It's actually the ultimate test for any lead character to earn my sympathy or at least my respect, if they have ideals or principles they'll stand up for no matter the circonstances and the consequences, or if they don't give a crap and will screw those principles up whenever it would be convenient for them and will become as bad, mean and nasty — if not WORST — as their ennemies.
If at least they become that way only to get rid of their ennemies, make them pay for their misdoings and avenge a close relation to whom the said ennemies cause pain, I won't say anything. But if a lead character just acts constantly like a dick to anyone either any of his/her closest relation or any innocent people he/she meets while cowardy or blindy arse-licking his/her avowed ennemy and you expect to me to have a little sympathy and respect for such a dickhead, FORGET IT ! Just forget it !
Once again, I don't care if the said character redeem him/herself, not if they do it at the very end while they have many opportunities throughout the story to do so just to prove how such an asshole he was all along. Anyhow, every time this kind of asshole decide to do the right thing and to improve their behavior, it's mostly too late, the harm has been done and let scars beyond repair, the character in question has wasted every chance to appear as a better person or at least trustworthy, everyone has legitmate reason to despise him and in the best case, they only do the BARE MINIMUM in proportion to all their misdoings or even the actual good deeds the actual heroes of the story made.
And yet, that is the better case, their also case their redeeming act are as much use as a chocolate teapot, they have no importance nor utility nor any impact whatoever, would be as significant as if they put up a fire they deliberately lighted on their own and already have on victim or else they still find a way to mess everything up — YES ! EVEN WHEN THEY DECIDE TO DO THE RIGHT THING !
When I say I can't handle this kind of character who reveal themselves to be nothing but a dumbass even after their "redemption". Or the fact they are the most praised by the fans.
Seriously, how should I have a favorable opinion about a character who can do anything properly either he is on the wrong or the right side ? *take a deep breath*

I have already stated how boring it is to focus on a character who does nothing to resolve his problems even if he has the opportunity to do it and so spend 90% of his time to hang around and twiddle his thumbs while everyone else have to do the job for him. It's even more infuriating when in addition to that, the said character acts like to a douchebag to anyone else, especially the ones who show him their sympathy, their support and tried to help him, and worst don't give a crap about their own problem as if they don't matter at all, and treat them with disdain and condescension.
I swear, that's the kind of character I want to slap every time they open their mouth. And to make their author eat their own keyboard when the character in question is glorified and rewarded at the end of the story.
Let's take back briefly the example of the princess/damsel in distress to make my point. I can accept any female character not to be a badass woman, as long as she shows a minimum of sincere compassion, empathy and consideration toward her entourage. Which it involves in a case of the princess/damsel in distress character that she doesn't constantly acts like a self-centered queen or a prima donna, shows a minimum of qualms, remorses and consideration when they act badly or mess everything up, doesn't treat her most trusted allies as servants or pawns, doesn't pull the rug out from them just to make sure nobody will steal her "precious" moment of glory or backtasbbing her own family for a silly and childish tantrum. Not if you want me to have sympathy for her, to root for this kind of character and consider her as a good role model. It would be like strew roses a bully's feet.

And here I come to my final point, the actual reason for me to make these meme.
People have to make the difference between a strong character (physically or not) and a bully.
And by "bully", I mean of course any brute who uses violence and intimidation for whatever reasons, as well as people with power and influence (mostly for lack of physical strenght) who abuses it to do the same in whatevegr scale.
This is why I think some "hereos" are praised for the wrong reasons. They aren't praised because they're strong (and clever) enough to overcome a thorny situation, to stand up for their ideals, their principles, their or anyone they care about to the death, because they use their power selflessly, because they're genuinely kind, sympathetic and helpful, but because they have the power and use it beyond reason to get whatever they want and sometimes harm, threat or humiliate any person who stand in their way or they simply don't like, no matter the consequences, no matter the comeuppance (anyhow, it would never their fault if they are so mean or everything goes downhill, it would be always anyone else's fault, including their victims).
Which it sucks if we talk about a hero supossedly considered as a role model 'cause what I just described is NOT a hero. It is a villain.
It sucks enough when we have a hero who proves to be far meaner and more harmful than the official villain/antagonist and constantly gets away from any of his misdoings, but if in addition to that the story insists on highlighting the hero while anyone else are demeaned for whatever reason, then the story inexorably sends a bad message to its audience.

And I have to insist on it. Violence, intimidation and humiliation =/= strenght.
No more than kindness, empathy and tolerance should be considered as weakness or vile.
Even Warcraft's orcs know the difference between strenght and brutality.
I will even say, you can have the strongest and most powerful character imaginable without making him a brute who thinks violence is the answer to everything. Even better, you can make him a benevolent pacifist and the most gentle, loving and considerate person who could live in this world, who only resorts to brute force in extreme case at worst but never when it's not necessary.
And don't get me started with "tragic past" or "bad period" bullshit to justify the bad behavior of the bully. First, everyone has a bad period without turning them into jerks for all that and secundly, if they sincerely suffered of a bad period like being bullied, humiliated, mistreated or even abused, then they should be in the best position to be aware how wrong it is to impose the same pain to anyone else, especially on innocent people. Or else, it just prove the guy is nothing more than self-centrered and completely insensitive, and then I don't see why I should have any sympathy to such a moron.
In the best case, it would be acceptable if the said character's motivation is to get revenge on those who made him/her suffer, making him/her a tragic character at best. It doesn't work at all if it just an excuse to be a bully and to make everyone else's existence, mostly innocent people, as miserable as his/her own fi not more, for reason as I already explain. There's a difference between a tragic character and a bully, as well there's a difference between taking revenge on someone and lashing out at someone else who didn't ask anything.

Also, don't get me started with "he did this for the good his close relation" either if the same guy made his so "precious" close relation suffer for its "own good". You're just justifying and legitimating abuse and no matter the reasons, THAT'S WRONG.

Anyway, thank you for reading this long text to the end and for your understanding as well.

Description
Yeah, here we go again with another period where I use meme 'cause I need to spit something out.
And believe me, I begin softly.

For this one, it may be just an impression so I may be wrong but I still have this impression that when people highly praise certain lead fictional character as a strong character, it's rarely for the good reasons.
What do I mean by that ? Well apparently, the said character just have to be physically strong (ideally athletic) and tough, to kick asses more than reasonable, to be all-powerful or else to be a complete winner and get whatever he/she want at the end of the story or simply get-off scot-free from anything to get praised and highlighted like a god, whatever it's by the audience, the author(s) or inside the diegesi of the fiction story. If not, the said character is called wimpy, feeble, or simply a nobody.
An just the existence of the Chad vs Virgin Meme seems give me this impression.

In that case, two things :
— ONE, what I just described is a Gary Stu/Mary Sue, which are terms that I usually loathe for a start, but also should be criticized, shouldn't it ? And yet, there are also cases where an actually strong character (usually a female one) is unfairly called that way even though he/she is not that super-strong, super-skilled, powerful or even flawless (which is one of the reason I always loathe the Mary Sue term, by the way) but that's another debate.
— TWO, it may make the said character a strong/powerful person, but does it make him/her a strong character for all that.

In order to clarify my point of view, this is how I personally describe a actually strong character.
For a start, the said characters had to be proactive, which means they do anything in their power to face a conflict and overcome it as best as they can, even in the worst situation imaginable and even though they are not in position of strength. They're also not afraid the challenge the world around them and to face the consequences, and sometimes had to challenge themselves to go through an difficult situation — which has the beneficial effect to make them dynamic characters, adapting to their situation as the story goes on, growing up, learning things about the world around them or about themselves and better understanding them, reinforcing their strength, correcting their weaknesses, in short growing up as stronger characters.
In itself, there is nothing to do with being super-strong or having any super-powers if not every powers of the universe (the character in question can just as well appear weak and powerless, even disabled and still remains a strong character), just showing a minimum of initiative, problem-solving and determination, doing their bit.

I'll add that the strong character is not necessary a complete winner, it can happen to fail and even more than once. But it's not such a big deal as long as he tried, did his best and LEARN from his failure. After all, nothing ventured nothing gained and sometimes failure is the best teacher we can have. Anyway, I would largely prefer to get involved into a character attempting the impossible in order to resolve a problem at the risk of screwing-up rather into another character that doesn't do anything for himself even his own life depended on it and reveals to be of no use at all.
Especially since there's still a middle ground between winning every time with one hand tied behind his back and not knowing their ass from their elbow.

To give you an example, I have no problem to consider a princess/damsel in distress character as "strong"... if she doesn't spend 90% of her time to sitting down, waiting for their problems resolve themselves and letting every stuff happens to her without ever reacting to that and most importantly, doesn't stupidly sabotage every chance and opportunity to bettering their situation or taking any advantage.
Trust me, it's boring enough to focus on a character who doesn't do anything on his/her own for him/herself or even try something for him/herself and always choose inaction whatever the circumstances but if he/she is also dumb enough to shoot him/herself in the foot, drop it ! I won't get involved anymore in his/her story (but again, that another debate I keep for a next meme).
The fact remains that if you show me the princess/damsel in distress doing anything in her power to overcome or get herself out of a situation where she is supposed to be powerless like standing up against her ennemies, planning a back-up plan or simply send a S.O.S. unknow to them, in short showing a minimum of problem-solving, I will have no problem to consider her as a strong character.
Another example, you can show me a slave to whom we inflict the worst treatment as a strong character, if you show me he not only survives to his horrible treatment and becomes hardened but do anything at his power make his situation or his comrades' situation better, either pacifically or by starting a revolution and fighting for freedom.
If in the contrary, you show me a character with literally free hands, more valid powers and opportunities to overcome a conflict supposed to give the said character in trouble, but never takes advantage of it to do so, would rather waste every opportunities, let anyone else resolve every of his/her trouble for him/her or simply does nothing but making his/her situation worse to the point of letting any of his/her avowed enemies take the advantage on him/her, I would hardly consider this kind of character as strong. And I won't get more involved in his/her story than with a doormat.
To this point, I've talked about lead characters, the ones I'm supposed to root for, to get ivolved with their stories. But it's also works for the antagonists and mostly the bad guys, that I should consider as a threat for the protagonists. If they don't make any effort to achieve their goal, if their plans lack ambition and perspective or consistency, if they don't know exactly what they want and are dumb enough to be fooled over and over again by their adverseries and mostly with the same trick 'cause they never learn from their previous failures or mistakes, I will hardly take them seriously or give them credit as antagonists or villains, even if they redeem themselves. Purely and simply because I would hardly consider them as strong characters in this way, so considering them as strong antagonists/villains. And also because I can hardly take seriously a character so dumb that whatever they do have no fricking sense and are unable to get a clue even if it was right under his/her nose.

The point is that a strenght of fictional character is not so determined by how strong, skilled or powerful he/she is, but rather how he/she handles facing adversity and other obstacles, how he handles a thorny situation even little power at his/her disposal.

And then, in a case where a lead character fails to get out of trouble all by him/herself even with the best willingness, it can be still considered as a strong character, maybe not for their abilities to come out victorious of a conflict but rather for their ideals or morals.
It's actually the ultimate test for any lead character to earn my sympathy or at least my respect, if they have ideals or principles they'll stand up for no matter the circonstances and the consequences, or if they don't give a crap and will screw those principles up whenever it would be convenient for them and will become as bad, mean and nasty — if not WORST — as their ennemies.
If at least they become that way only to get rid of their ennemies, make them pay for their misdoings and avenge a close relation to whom the said ennemies cause pain, I won't say anything. But if a lead character just acts constantly like a dick to anyone either any of his/her closest relation or any innocent people he/she meets while cowardy or blindy arse-licking his/her avowed ennemy and you expect to me to have a little sympathy and respect for such a dickhead, FORGET IT ! Just forget it !
Once again, I don't care if the said character redeem him/herself, not if they do it at the very end while they have many opportunities throughout the story to do so just to prove how such an asshole he was all along. Anyhow, every time this kind of asshole decide to do the right thing and to improve their behavior, it's mostly too late, the harm has been done and let scars beyond repair, the character in question has wasted every chance to appear as a better person or at least trustworthy, everyone has legitmate reason to despise him and in the best case, they only do the BARE MINIMUM in proportion to all their misdoings or even the actual good deeds the actual heroes of the story made.
And yet, that is the better case, their also case their redeeming act are as much use as a chocolate teapot, they have no importance nor utility nor any impact whatoever, would be as significant as if they put up a fire they deliberately lighted on their own and already have on victim or else they still find a way to mess everything up — YES ! EVEN WHEN THEY DECIDE TO DO THE RIGHT THING !
When I say I can't handle this kind of character who reveal themselves to be nothing but a dumbass even after their "redemption". Or the fact they are the most praised by the fans.
Seriously, how should I have a favorable opinion about a character who can do anything properly either he is on the wrong or the right side ? *take a deep breath*

I have already stated how boring it is to focus on a character who does nothing to resolve his problems even if he has the opportunity to do it and so spend 90% of his time to hang around and twiddle his thumbs while everyone else have to do the job for him. It's even more infuriating when in addition to that, the said character acts like to a douchebag to anyone else, especially the ones who show him their sympathy, their support and tried to help him, and worst don't give a crap about their own problem as if they don't matter at all, and treat them with disdain and condescension.
I swear, that's the kind of character I want to slap every time they open their mouth. And to make their author eat their own keyboard when the character in question is glorified and rewarded at the end of the story.
Let's take back briefly the example of the princess/damsel in distress to make my point. I can accept any female character not to be a badass woman, as long as she shows a minimum of sincere compassion, empathy and consideration toward her entourage. Which it involves in a case of the princess/damsel in distress character that she doesn't constantly acts like a self-centered queen or a prima donna, shows a minimum of qualms, remorses and consideration when they act badly or mess everything up, doesn't treat her most trusted allies as servants or pawns, doesn't pull the rug out from them just to make sure nobody will steal her "precious" moment of glory or backtasbbing her own family for a silly and childish tantrum. Not if you want me to have sympathy for her, to root for this kind of character and consider her as a good role model. It would be like strew roses a bully's feet.

And here I come to my final point, the actual reason for me to make these meme.
People have to make the difference between a strong character (physically or not) and a bully.
And by "bully", I mean of course any brute who uses violence and intimidation for whatever reasons, as well as people with power and influence (mostly for lack of physical strenght) who abuses it to do the same in whatevegr scale.
This is why I think some "hereos" are praised for the wrong reasons. They aren't praised because they're strong (and clever) enough to overcome a thorny situation, to stand up for their ideals, their principles, their or anyone they care about to the death, because they use their power selflessly, because they're genuinely kind, sympathetic and helpful, but because they have the power and use it beyond reason to get whatever they want and sometimes harm, threat or humiliate any person who stand in their way or they simply don't like, no matter the consequences, no matter the comeuppance (anyhow, it would never their fault if they are so mean or everything goes downhill, it would be always anyone else's fault, including their victims).
Which it sucks if we talk about a hero supossedly considered as a role model 'cause what I just described is NOT a hero. It is a villain.
It sucks enough when we have a hero who proves to be far meaner and more harmful than the official villain/antagonist and constantly gets away from any of his misdoings, but if in addition to that the story insists on highlighting the hero while anyone else are demeaned for whatever reason, then the story inexorably sends a bad message to its audience.

And I have to insist on it. Violence, intimidation and humiliation =/= strenght.
No more than kindness, empathy and tolerance should be considered as weakness or vile.
Even Warcraft's orcs know the difference between strenght and brutality.
I will even say, you can have the strongest and most powerful character imaginable without making him a brute who thinks violence is the answer to everything. Even better, you can make him a benevolent pacifist and the most gentle, loving and considerate person who could live in this world, who only resorts to brute force in extreme case at worst but never when it's not necessary.
And don't get me started with "tragic past" or "bad period" bullshit to justify the bad behavior of the bully. First, everyone has a bad period without turning them into jerks for all that and secundly, if they sincerely suffered of a bad period like being bullied, humiliated, mistreated or even abused, then they should be in the best position to be aware how wrong it is to impose the same pain to anyone else, especially on innocent people. Or else, it just prove the guy is nothing more than self-centrered and completely insensitive, and then I don't see why I should have any sympathy to such a moron.
In the best case, it would be acceptable if the said character's motivation is to get revenge on those who made him/her suffer, making him/her a tragic character at best. It doesn't work at all if it just an excuse to be a bully and to make everyone else's existence, mostly innocent people, as miserable as his/her own fi not more, for reason as I already explain. There's a difference between a tragic character and a bully, as well there's a difference between taking revenge on someone and lashing out at someone else who didn't ask anything.

Also, don't get me started with "he did this for the good his close relation" either if the same guy made his so "precious" close relation suffer for its "own good". You're just justifying and legitimating abuse and no matter the reasons, THAT'S WRONG.

Anyway, thank you for reading this long text to the end and for your understanding as well.