meta_halo
Making the rounds.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 29
- Likes received
- 348
Replace "Khepri" and "Sophia" with any two characters and that's an apt statement of one of the most common problems readers, or consumers of any media, have. It's easy for us to forget that, for the sake of drama, we'll often know things the characters don't ("Grue" is actually Jack Slash! OH NOES!), and vice versa (backstories, the Unspoken Plan Guarantee).it wasn't - initially - obvious to me. ... Upon reflection, I think this is because I know more about Khepri than Sophia does, and I hadn't mentally adjusted for the different perspective;
OTOH, writers (creators) should keep in mind that they know more about the characters than the readers (consumers) do. This is not specifically in response to the debate about Sophia's characterization--it's been in the back of my mind since TanaNari mentioned being disappointed with readers for not noticing / commenting on how quickly Vicky accepted working with the former Bonesaw, or that she'd been tortured by the Yangban, and most recently for not guessing Emma's plans. Personally I adopt a "wait and see" attitude, since I have a hard time reading the author's mind unless something is foreshadowed pretty blatantly.
The fact that we're dealing with fanfic of a relatively minor character makes things murkier. Was canon!Sophia a true psychopath, or did the conditions for her redemption just not present themselves during the story? Only Wildbow knows for sure, and his answer is probably "yes." Fanfic writers each fill in those gaps in their own ways, or occasionally totally ignore characterization for the sake of humor/drama/wish-fulfillment/whatever. I'm sure there's at least one story that ships Taylor with a supremely tsundere Sophia: "Just because I'm trying to kill you, it doesn't mean I like you or anything! "
Anyway, I thought Sophia's characterization was plausible, plus it was a perfect chance to slip in an "I could take her." joke. And speaking of characterization:
Actually I thought the most telling sign of Sophia's anti-intellectualism was this line:Sophia's not exactly portrayed as the "intellectual" sort. She's mean, possibly below average IQ, and is currently in Juvie. There's not a lot for me to do that's in character EXCEPT profanities and simple language as I used in the chapter.
Not considering formal speech ("boasts", "premier") to be "real people words" is exactly the kind of sour grapes anti-intellectualism I've seen people display IRL.Emma could talk forever already, but at least she used real people words before.
The Psychology Today article you linked distinguishes between primary psychopaths, who are genetically incapable of empathy, and secondary psychopaths, a.k.a. sociopaths, who are more products of their environment. IIRC Sophia became (more) violent after getting her powers, and given what we know of shard influence in general, Earth Bet might need a new classification system:But Sophia is clearly set up to be truly psychotic and a fucking coward to boot. ... Alec was a sociopath. HUGE difference between the two.
Type 1A - genetic (Calvert, probably)
Type 1B - parahuman-related (Sophia)
Type 2 - environmental (Jack Fucking Slash)
Mixed Type (Alec)
Type 1B - parahuman-related (Sophia)
Type 2 - environmental (Jack Fucking Slash)
Mixed Type (Alec)