Things I do not like in fiction #2: Losing your humanity through tragic circumstance

[sqbr]

I've been trying to articulate a particular trope I absolutely can't stand for a while, and talking with Cam about the demons in Supernatural(*) crystalized it: when something horrible and unfair happens to someone, and as a result they "lose their humanity" and become a Bad Guy. The main context I'm thinking of is when your main characters' job is to hunt down bad guys, and this type of bad guy is used to create a little pathos before the inevitable thrilling showdown.

This trope is particularly odious when the "unfair thing" is some sort of real world injustice, and this bad guy is the only victim of it we meet. Thus implying that everyone who suffers this injustice becomes a crazy bad guy. Sexual assault (especially of children) is popular right now, but you also get female/non-white/GLBT characters who've cracked under the pressure of sexism/racism etc, or disabled/mutated/GLBT characters who've cracked under the strain of their own "freakishness". (See for example The X-Files, the Other, and the Mutant Enemy)

It's like writers want to play around with hot-button/emotionally affecting issues, but they can't bring their minds to accepting that the victims of these injustices are actual people, instead seeing them as an incomprehensibly broken Other.

As with lovable bastards, the other option is to have them die tragically/redemptively. This elevates them from bad guy to victim, but they still don't get to be an active, effective character choosing their own destiny. I think stories which introduce an unfair situation and then have everyone die can be very emotionally effective, but imo they're also somewhat lazy, because they give that catharsis of the problem being "resolved" without really looking at how it might actually be resolved.

I may stop there, I hope these posts don't leave me with a bunch of narky comments in the morning :)

EDIT (since penchaft complained): I can't find any tv tropes which are quite right, but here's Redemption=death, Bring Out Your Gay Dead, Freudian Excuse and In The Blood.

(*)which from the sound of things don't actually fulfill it since the demons literally stop being human. But they inspired me nonetheless :)

Comments

[tevriel.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it doesn't apply to Supernatural demons. Inasmuch as we know anything - and most of what we know about Hell we know from demons, who Lie About Everything - we hear that centuries in hell gradually burns away your humanity in a very literal sense and you become a demon. Demons are, genuinely and entirely, inhuman - subject to exorcism, needing to possess real humans to exist on Earth, etc. They claim they used to be human, but... demons. They lie. Quite possibly they never were human at all, they just say they were.

In Supernatural we also have Evil Spirits - and, sometimes, spirits that aren't evil so much as angry, and taking out their anger in ways that hurt people, so they also have to be hunted. The origin of Angry Spirits was given its only from-someone-who-isn't-just-a-theorising-human explanation by a Reaper, who told us that spirits who refuse to move on, for whatever reason, also tend to lose their humanity - they forget everything that isn't anger and hatred.

Also not human, because they're spiritual remnants that have ceased entirely to be that which they were in life.

So for my beloved Supernatural I do indeed claim exception, but you did already acknowledge it.

Meanwhile, yes, I agree with you. If nothing else I like it acknowledged that the way in which someone suffered/is different did not MAKE them crazy/evil, even if it shaped the specific FORM of their crazy. I mean, hi, I suffered abuse as a child, and yet I do not go out and stalk neighbourhood pets for my jollies. Etc.

[alias_sqbr]

Yeah, I don't mind so much when beings are presented as inhuman and not worthy of mercy if they're literally inhuman :)

I wasn't abused as a child, but I've known many people who were, and oddly enough none of you have been supervillains, or even (as a group) any nastier (or in any way much different) than everyone else. So yes, that trope really annoys me, though possibly not as much as you (or that woman who is, technically, a "mutant", and wrote the post I linked)

[greyreviews.livejournal.com]

Are you complaining that it happens at all? Or that it is just over-used?

If the latter then yeah I agree it is an overused plot device, although not as bad as others. (Amnesia is the one I find over-used the most)

For it happening at all, just because you dont know anyone who developed anything worse than Munchausen syndrome as a result of their past doesnt mean it doesnt happen.

There are literally thousands of documented cases of people reacting poorly to abuse in their past by becoming everything from MPD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Beauchamp through to serial killers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Wuornos (As opposed to the very rare if ever super-spy has amnesia and then goes around killing people to find out his history.)

Given that your average TV episode will be between 20-40 minutes long and typically the aforementioned "damaged" character will only be in one episode it is a, whilst convenient, not unrealistic path to take to quickly fill in a back history.

Also the episode about the person who was abused in the past then got over it and moved on with their life suffering no lingering psychological effects to become a normal productive member of society as an accountant doesn't make the greatest television.

As for your argument that as they are the only person with an abusive past we meet so it implies all people with an abusive past are broken is just ridiculous. Quick, every episode of every television program must have no less than 27 distinct personalities who all have a shared a similar abusive past to adequately represent the group so that no misconceptions of what people who have been abused may end up like.

[alias_sqbr]

That it's overused, and that it's usually done really badly. There are some instances where it's done well, and I agree that it's not completely divorced from reality. I'm not saying writers should never do stories which resemble cliches, but they should try to avoid it where possible, partly because it perpetuates untruth but mainly because it detracts from the story.

it is a, whilst convenient, not unrealistic path to take to quickly fill in a back history.

It's only quick shorthand because it relies on cliched and innaccurate ideas about these "victims". "Oh, he was abused as a child, well that completely explains why he's a psycho serial killer". No it doesn't!

I'm not saying shoe-horn happy well adjusted abuse victims etc into your stories arbitrarily. But villains are not the only people to get backstories, so why not have these things happen to other people too (sometimes, when it fits the story). Plenty of heroes have a Big Angsty Thing that drives them, after all.