Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dracula's Biggest Mistake

blog.ayjay.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 157 posts

Re: Dracula's Biggest Mistake

#141

Post by DoughnutHole »

aspenmayer wrote: post #92
thaumasiotes wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, if it wasn’t obvious I apologize. Many main characters have plot armor in a way that makes for lazy writing, bad characterization, lowers stakes in the plot in favor of protagonists, and breaks immersion, which is what I was alluding to in response to this part of your comment, and the thread broadly: >> But compare e.g. her meeting with Glory in season 5, where the two of them get into a fistfight, and after…

The supernatural powers are the plot armor which prevent OP characters from suffering the consequences.

A character’s explained powers saving them isn’t plot armour, it’s just armour.

E.g. a superhero whose power is having impenetrable skin surviving a hail of bullets isn’t plot armour - it’s an explained part of the story. A character survived because of their nature as a character.

Plot armour would be a hero who does not have any particular resistance to bullets running through a hail of gunfire and surviving. It’s an extremely improbable outcome which ruins suspension of disbelief. The only reasonable explanation is that the character survived because the writers wanted to keep them alive. That’s plot armour.

Re: Dracula's Biggest Mistake

#142

Post by at_a_remove »

aquova wrote: post #56
at_a_remove wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've counted at least three civilization-shattering technologies in Star Trek which were simply thrown in, without consideration for the long-term, for reasons of budget and convenience, but largely to maintain the Sailing Ship, Days of Yore set of metaphors. Transporters: Originally designed to save on tedious shuttle launches and landings and, most importantly, footage, these would utterly rewrite medicine, aging,…

I think there's a fourth, which in my opinion is even more world shattering than the others -- the replicator. It often was shown as a novelty device to make food or warm beverages, but the ability to convert energy into any needed material would instantly transform the world into a post-scarcity, post-economic future. What would you even use as currency when everyone has personal money making machines? I've seen som…

Oh, I lump the replicator in with the transporter. I can see the replicator as an ancestor of the transporter.

Re: Dracula's Biggest Mistake

#143

Post by aspenmayer »

DoughnutHole wrote: post #141
aspenmayer wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The supernatural powers are the plot armor which prevent OP characters from suffering the consequences.

A character’s explained powers saving them isn’t plot armour, it’s just armour. E.g. a superhero whose power is having impenetrable skin surviving a hail of bullets isn’t plot armour - it’s an explained part of the story. A character survived because of their nature as a character. Plot armour would be a hero who does not have any particular resistance to bullets running through a hail of gunfire and surviving. It’s…

I don’t agree that this is how the term plot armor is commonly used, but I won’t disagree with your desire to use the term in that way.

Re: Dracula's Biggest Mistake

#144

Post by DoughnutHole »

aspenmayer wrote: post #143
DoughnutHole wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A character’s explained powers saving them isn’t plot armour, it’s just armour. E.g. a superhero whose power is having impenetrable skin surviving a hail of bullets isn’t plot armour - it’s an explained part of the story. A character survived because of their nature as a character. Plot armour would be a hero who does not have any particular resistance to bullets running through a hail of gunfire and surviving. It’s…

I don’t agree that this is how the term plot armor is commonly used, but I won’t disagree with your desire to use the term in that way.

plot armor

noun

used to refer to the phenomenon in fiction whereby the main character is allowed to survive dangerous situations because they are needed for the plot to continue.

Re: Dracula's Biggest Mistake

#145

Post by aspenmayer »

DoughnutHole wrote: post #144
aspenmayer wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t agree that this is how the term plot armor is commonly used, but I won’t disagree with your desire to use the term in that way.

plot armor noun used to refer to the phenomenon in fiction whereby the main character is allowed to survive dangerous situations because they are needed for the plot to continue.

Yeah, that’s what I originally posted. So why are you disagreeing with me when you said:

> A character’s explained powers saving them isn’t plot armour, it’s just armour.

Re: Dracula's Biggest Mistake

#146

Post by DoughnutHole »

aspenmayer wrote: post #145
DoughnutHole wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

plot armor noun used to refer to the phenomenon in fiction whereby the main character is allowed to survive dangerous situations because they are needed for the plot to continue.

Yeah, that’s what I originally posted. So why are you disagreeing with me when you said: > A character’s explained powers saving them isn’t plot armour, it’s just armour.

The important bit is

> because they are needed for the plot to continue.

ie. A character should die in this situation but survives because their death would be inconvenient for the writer.

A character surviving because of a predefined power is consistent with the fiction. They didn’t survive out of the writer’s necessity but because they had already been written as someone who can survive such a situation. That’s competent writing.

You’re trying to define plot armour as just… any character surviving a dangerous situation? That makes the term completely meaningless. It’s meant to denote bad, lazy writing whereby an important character improbably survives despite it not being justified by the rest of the fiction.

Additionally, from the very TVTropes article you linked:

> “Plot Armor is when a main character's life and health are safeguarded by the fact that he's the one person (or one of several) who can't be removed from the story. Therefore, whenever Bob is in a situation where he could be killed (or at the least very seriously injured), he comes out unharmed with no logical, In-Universe explanation.”

A character’s survival being well justified in-universe makes it not plot armour.

Re: Dracula's Biggest Mistake

#147

Post by aspenmayer »

DoughnutHole wrote: post #146
aspenmayer wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that’s what I originally posted. So why are you disagreeing with me when you said: > A character’s explained powers saving them isn’t plot armour, it’s just armour.

The important bit is > because they are needed for the plot to continue. ie. A character should die in this situation but survives because their death would be inconvenient for the writer. A character surviving because of a predefined power is consistent with the fiction. They didn’t survive out of the writer’s necessity but because they had already been written as someone who can survive such a situation. That’s com…

> “Plot Armor is when a main character's life and health are safeguarded by the fact that he's the one person (or one of several) who can't be removed from the story.

The original post we’re both replying to referred to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, who is literally the main character of the series. I’m not sure if you’re speaking generally, but I’d say that her powers are not well justified in-universe, to the degree that even supernatural beings in her narrative setting are flabbergasted at her hardiness. I stand by my statement that she definitely has plot armor, as the show is literally named after her.

Re: Dracula's Biggest Mistake

#148

Post by DoughnutHole »

aspenmayer wrote: post #147
DoughnutHole wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The important bit is > because they are needed for the plot to continue. ie. A character should die in this situation but survives because their death would be inconvenient for the writer. A character surviving because of a predefined power is consistent with the fiction. They didn’t survive out of the writer’s necessity but because they had already been written as someone who can survive such a situation. That’s com…

> “Plot Armor is when a main character's life and health are safeguarded by the fact that he's the one person (or one of several) who can't be removed from the story. The original post we’re both replying to referred to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, who is literally the main character of the series. I’m not sure if you’re speaking generally, but I’d say that her powers are not well justified in-universe, to the degree th…

The fact that plot armour applies to main characters does not imply that main characters necessarily have plot armour.

Buffy having a high survivability is pretty consistent with her defined powers (general resistance to harm, fighting abilities, accelerated healing). It’s not enough to just say she survives fighting monsters.

A good example of clear plot armour in Buffy is the named vampire characters. The random baddies disintegrate the second they’re touched by sunlight whereas Spike survives stretches of sunlight multiple times. This violates the established rules of the fiction for the sake of protecting an important character.

Another example is the rest of the gang of kids managing to survive fighting vampires on their own without Buffy. Early on they have no established powers and while the various monsters are demonstrated to be tough to take down even by someone with superpowers.

Re: Dracula's Biggest Mistake

#149

Post by aspenmayer »

DoughnutHole wrote: post #148
aspenmayer wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Plot Armor is when a main character's life and health are safeguarded by the fact that he's the one person (or one of several) who can't be removed from the story. The original post we’re both replying to referred to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, who is literally the main character of the series. I’m not sure if you’re speaking generally, but I’d say that her powers are not well justified in-universe, to the degree th…

The fact that plot armour applies to main characters does not imply that main characters necessarily have plot armour. Buffy having a high survivability is pretty consistent with her defined powers (general resistance to harm, fighting abilities, accelerated healing). It’s not enough to just say she survives fighting monsters. A good example of clear plot armour in Buffy is the named vampire characters. The random ba…

> The fact that plot armour applies to main characters does not imply that main characters necessarily have plot armour.

So we agree that main characters have plot armor?

I never said that main characters necessarily have plot armor, just that when MCs survive events that beggars belief for the viewer, they do. The perception of the existence of plot armor for any particular character in a work broadly or in a given context in a larger work is a subjective distinction, and varies by viewer, their perspective, interpretation of the setting, the character’s powers, how compelling the writing is, and suspension of disbelief or lack thereof.

Your argument feels like you’re gaslighting me for disagreeing with you about differing perceptions about such subjective distinctions, then using that disagreement to find fault with what is actually a difference of opinion, while characterizing it as me supposedly misunderstanding how the subjective concept of plot armor works, when in actuality we agree on how plot armor works, we just disagree with whether or not a specific character has it or not. But that’s the very nature of the subjectivity of plot armor.

Of course you’re free to disagree, I never said you couldn’t, and that’s part of the fun of fandom. Just because I think Buffy has plot armor, and you don’t, doesn’t mean that one of us necessarily misunderstands the concept of plot armor, Buffy as a character, or the show and its narrative setting, in my view.

Re: Dracula's Biggest Mistake

#150

Post by pavel_lishin »

hef19898 wrote: post #140
pavel_lishin wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't our muscles mostly limited by the brain deciding that we should definitely not apply enough strength to rip our own tendons off our bones? An infected "zombie" may not have such limiters. And a human being can survive for weeks without food, days without water.

Simple bio mechanics so: the leverage and overall force are the same in zombie body (ignoring voodoo magic) as they are in human one, intentional injuries and hoing beyond the pain limit nonwithstanding. And zombies are, again ignoring voodoo, well, rotting. That means less tensile strength of muscles and such. And even without all that, a himan cannot use his fingers and teeth to tear another human, well, we know th…

Now I want to read/watch a Zombie fiction where the zombies are everywhere, but so weak that they realistically can't harm you at all - other than infections from scratches.
Post reply on HN