#which is fine individually but the prevalence and pervasiveness of it gets tiresome imo

[chamerionwrites]

My brain is too mushy rn to articulate more than vague notes to self, but something something the commonality of protagonists who are basically unformed everymen and thus less interesting than all the supporting characters in their own story. Something something sometimes this is about trying to make protagonists who are blandly '''relatable''' but I think often it's just an easy route to narrative dynamism (or an attempt at it) because it leaves so much room for change and growth. Something something there's nothing inherently wrong with this storytelling framework, in fact it can work really well, but in aggregate it can get really tedious when stories are saturated with protagonists who age like Olympic gymnasts (hearing the Call To Adventure at 25 makes you OLD) and are orphans with zero family ties, outsiders with little connection to or context for the setting in which the story takes place, and/or just plain old naive/politically apathetic/weirdly bland and unfinished. Like I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that kind of youthful blank slate of a protagonist. But I do sometimes get the impression that some writers (maybe unconsciously) limit themselves to a particular kind of character arc that they have absorbed as The Most dynamic and interesting way to tell a story, but which can actually come off as pretty flat and formulaic.

#i don't think it's fair to fully blame campbell for this but it is a v Hero's Journeyfied model of storytelling #which is fine individually but the prevalence and pervasiveness of it gets tiresome imo #characters are interesting when they have history and baggage and opinions and a life that exists outside the immediate narrative frame! #on writing #my posts