Alternative Character Interpretation Cleanup

As explained here, Alternative Character Interpretation is a very popular audience reaction, but it's often used to shoehorn in obscure or even downright inaccurate character interpretations. I got the idea for the thread by reading AlternativeCharacterInterpretation.Bo Jack Horseman, which is full of Ron the Death Eater interpretations from a troper who seems to have a bias against the show. This is particularly evident in Herb's entries.

Since this is a popular item and bound to create problems as long as there are new fandoms with special takes on characters, I'm making this a long-term project.

Can the Base Breaking Characters I mentioned for Kirby Buckets be listed as part of this trope instead?

I don't think so? It doesn't seem like their characters are interpreted any differently than the show presents them. And again, it relies on a common fan interpretation that you've admitted you don't have proof exists due to the small fanbase.

You ever heard of the saying “As kids we love the heroes, as adults we understand the villains”? That seems to be what applies here. Kirby Buckets doesn’t really have an adult fanbase, so there’s nobody there to really sympathize with the antagonists. The kids are always going to side with Kirby no matter what. I have a hunch that if adult fans existed they’d be much more sympathetic to Dawn than kids would (although girls who watch the show might show solidarity with their fellow female character).

It’s not just a Kirby Buckets phenomenon. I mean look at SpongeBob. The kids love SpongeBob and Patrick the most. Adults generally are more sympathetic to characters like Squidward or Plankton, Or wrestling. Kids love John Cena. Adults generally boo him.

Edited by LaptopGuy on Mar 2nd 2021 at 10:36:52 AM

But that's not an alternative interpretation. Alt Interpretations are like "It's possible Bob actually did love Alice" and "Carol might be the true villain".

“The “bad guy” was right all along” is an alternative interpretation, from what I understand.

• “SpongeBob and Patrick are annoying idiots and Squidward deserves better.”
• “Plankton is the good guy: he needs money to make a living while Mr. Krabs is a cheapskate.”
• “John Cena is a hypocritical jerk who acts like a Heel.”

Those are all ACIs and not the “mainstream” view of the character.

Edited by LaptopGuy on Mar 2nd 2021 at 10:49:12 AM

And many of those are covered by Unintentionally Unsympathetic. The ACI would be "Spongebob is a creepy stalker who harasses Squidward because he's a Depraved Homosexual Yandere" or something. It involves a different interpretation of the character's motives and personality. "Plankton is a good guy because he just wants to make money" could be an ACI because it actually doesn't fit the canon portrayal of his methods and motivations, but one could interpret some feelings or attitude that isn't there.

Edited by mightymewtron on Mar 2nd 2021 at 11:06:59 AM

My point was, because Kirby Buckets doesn’t have a particularly large adult fanbase, we don’t know whether or not they’d react differently to the characters than how the main demographic is supposed to. But I was saying that they have a history of doing so for other kids’ shows, so perhaps they’d do the same.

Edited by LaptopGuy on Mar 2nd 2021 at 12:12:35 PM

Yeah, but you can't speculate on an audience reaction like that. If the ACI doesn't exist then don't add it. Especially when it's not even really an ACI.

Sorry. Sometimes I feel less like a Kirby Buckets fan and more like I am the fandom itself.

Edited by LaptopGuy on Mar 2nd 2021 at 12:43:59 PM

Hey, there are works I feel similarly about. (Seriously, nobody else on the fucking planet cares about Rags!) But in those cases I try and avoid adding certain YMMV tropes, because I can't possibly verify if anyone else feels the same way I do.

I’m curious; is there a character in Rags who you view differently from how the audience is expected to?

Well, there's the pawn shop owner who the film presents as a good, likable character but when you stop and think about it he's kind of an asshole for reasons that if I went into detail I'll be here for another five minutes.

This is a bit of a derail though. Though this particular character does make me wonder about his motives and thought process, I'm just one person. Rags, like Kirby Buckets, doesn't have any sort of fanbase, so these aren't really ACI- because there's nobody else to share my interpretation. That's why the only YMMV things I added are, like, BLAM and Fridge and Tear Jerker- since those don't require huge fanbases to prove or disprove or add credibility to.

My point is, I get being the one person to care about discussing and troping a work. Works with tiny or nonexistent fandoms get the short end of the stick when it comes to YMMV, and that's just the way it has to be if we don't want the pages to get too biased or personally subjective.

Anyway, this is getting pretty off track. Do you have any examples you were planning to discuss here, Mew?

I personally can’t think of any examples. So I’m going to leave this thread to you guys for now.

Yep, I'm starting with AlternativeCharacterInterpretation.Bo Jack Horseman. I think it's very questionable in some parts, and the guy who made the page has a history of adding complaining into pages like this, so I'm suspect. The Bojack cleanup is kind of stalled so I figured I'd discuss the examples here. Look at this massive entry for Herb:

Personally, I think this veers into Ron the Death Eater at parts, especially the insinuation that he was grooming BoJack from the beginning as opposed to just becoming his friend and then developing an unrequited crush on him. I've heard mixed feelings on how sympathetic Herb is, but I've never seen that perspective expressed offsite. (It rubs me the wrong way mostly because of the Unfortunate Implications of insisting that the only major gay male character is more predatory than we see him act in canon.)

Edited by mightymewtron on Mar 2nd 2021 at 2:42:30 PM

This was just added to The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

• Was the soldier who interrupted 'Hellfire' actually the Brutish Guard or was it an angel sent by God to help Frollo? Some fans of the film believe that the guard who interrupted 'Hellfire' was actually an angel.
  • There are several points worth bringing up. First, the guard's face cannot be seen, so it's uncertain whether it's actually one of Frollo's soldiers or an angel as theorized. Second, the light behind the guard appears like the light of Heaven while the fire behind Frollo looks like the fires of hell. The guard sounds as though he's pleading for Frollo to let go of his obsession with Esmeralda, knowing it'd lead to his damnation. However, Frollo is too deep in denial of his sins to acknowledge his wrongdoings and ignores the angel's warning by giving into his lust for Esmeralda. When the guard closes the door, the light disappears, meaning that Frollo has rejected going to Heaven. Third, the Brutish Guard usually speaks with a coarse and gruff voice, even around Frollo, but during 'Hellfire', his voice sounds soothing and gentle, a complete contrast from his usual self. If this to be believed, then God did give Frollo a chance to repent for his crimes, but Frollo was too proud and too deep in denial of his sins to do so.

It might be a valid entry if we merge it to one bullet point and cut down some redundancy (i.e. the first sentence, since the point about the guard being an angel is repeated in the next one).

I wrote these examples for House of Anubis a little while ago. Do they look okay? I'm mostly concerned about the first few. The KT one I stand by (though I want to move it to our future "LGBT Audience Interpretation" trope at the first chance I have), but the others...well, tell me, does "some fans think this character is a Jerkass and others sympathize" count as ACI?

Nina also has a Base-Breaking Character example talking about the same issue.

• Alternative Character Interpretation:
  • Nina Martin, the protagonist, is either seen as a kind, heroic, and sympathetic figure, or an abusive, impatient jerkass to her friends and Fabian. This debate comes from Season 2, where Nina's increased stress over the mystery caused her to lash out a lot. Fans of her believe she was sympathetic and relatable, while detractors felt she was too mean and that the issue was with her personality, not her stress.
  • Joy: Sympathetic Jerkass Woobie who was a better fit for Fabian than Nina was? Or a Jerkass who just kept playing the victim card?
  • In season 3, was Mara a sympathetic Jerkass Woobie or a formerly sympathetic character who Took a Level in Jerkass and had no right to do what she did to Joy and Jerome? Much of the fandom seemed to lean to the latter, but there are still people who believe the former.
  • A popular theory that gained traction after the show ended is that KT is actually a lesbian, something popular with fans as KT hasn't had a love-interest in the show proper.

I think that "are they sympathetic or not" thing would better fit Base-Breaking Character? ACI seems more for alternate speculations on their motives and stuff.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. Like I said, the KT one I still stand by (though it might need a little more context), but the others can get cut- especially since other examples on the page (Die for Our Ship, Base-Breaking Character, and Jerks Are Worse Than Villains) cover these reactions already.

I'm glad we have this clean-up now, and I'd like to help with it if I can. I certainly have a few examples in mind. But first, can I ask a few basic questions to make sure I understand how this trope works?

So, ACI is supposed to be both popular and plausible; obscure interpretations shouldn't be listed, and popular but implausible ones usually fall under Ron the Death Eater and Draco in Leather Pants. Is this correct?

Then, ACI often happens when a work leaves something ambiguous, right? But can it be applied when a work states things clearly, but fans overlook the official explanation and come up with their own? Also, what if a work itself leaves something ambiguous, but Word of God/supplementary materials/whatnot clarify matters?

Also, does ACI require a fan opinion, or detractors have their say, too? Their interpretations run a high risk of falling into Ron the Death Eater though.

Twilight might need some attention. Some of the AC Is seem snarky to me. These stand out in particular as they don't really have to do with the characters:

• In this review of Twilight, the reviewer says that the Vampire-Werewolf Love Triangle of Bella, Edward and Jacob could be interpreted as a racial-class thing, since vampires in the book (and in general) tend to be sort of wealthy European types and werewolves are butch blue collar Native Americans.
  • Actually a serious essay in Bringing Light To Twilight: Perspectives On A Pop Culture Phenomenon which also discusses how the series has had a bad effect on real-life Quiluetes. The essays are actually really interesting discussing Mormonism, queer theory and ecocriticsim amongst other things.
• This Reddit post posits the idea that the series is a tragedy, rather than a romance.

At the moment, there's a debate over what Draco in Leather Pants and Ron the Death Eater are, but that thread seems to have stalled.

It didn't stall, it stopped in favor of taking the tropes to TRS.

I didn't see a TRS thread for either trope yet. Are they on some kind of wait list?

Getting back to Twilight, here's what I mean when I say many examples seem snarky:

• Cleolinda has stated several times that things make a lot more sense if you think of it like Bella being Too Kinky to Torture and actually being turned on by the stalking and control, instead of it being played as True Love for Her Own Good.
• Bella could actually be an Unreliable Narrator who experienced Fantastic Racism from vampires in the past and spends the entire book series making them all dance on her strings to show them that for all their mary-suedom, they can't measure up to her. The sideplot with the werewolves is more evidence of her hatred of supernatural beings coming out.
• Some have jokingly suggested that the reason why Vampires can't read Bella's mind is because she literally has no character to speak of.
  "No no, you can read it, it's just that there isn't anything there."

  — Rifftrax, when Edward tells Bella he can read everyone's mind but hers.

Nobody's made a thread yet, but the wick checking is done.