[005]
Wyldchyld
Current Version
Changed line(s) 6 from:
n
* TheyWastedAPerfectlyGoodCharacter: The show is centred on a team of four girls, led by Ruby, whose team name forms the title of the show. However, although Ruby is the main character, she receives far less character development or back story exploration during the first five volumes than the other main characters, and even some minor characters. For example, her complicated family situation is only discussed whenever Yang\'s character is being explored and her goals and drivers in life usually only get mentioned by proxy when other characters are discussing their own life goals. With few exceptions, her feelings and thoughts about even traumatic events tend to only be hinted at, or speculated about by other characters. As a result, Ruby\'s role in the story is passive, acting as a lens for the characters around her to be explored and as a pivot around which the plot occurs, rather than contributing to, or driving, the plot in more a active fashion.
to:
* TheyWastedAPerfectlyGoodCharacter: The show is centred on a team of four girls, led by Ruby, whose team name forms the title of the show. However, although Ruby is the main character, she receives far less character development or back story exploration during the first five volumes than the other main characters, and even some minor characters. For example, her complicated family situation is only discussed whenever Yang\\\'s character is being explored and her goals and drivers in life usually only get mentioned by proxy when other characters are discussing their own life goals. With only a few exceptions, her feelings and thoughts about even traumatic events tend to only be hinted at, or speculated about by other characters. As a result, Ruby\\\'s role in the story is passive, acting as a lens for the characters around her to be explored and as a pivot around which the plot occurs, rather than contributing to, or driving, the plot in more a active fashion.
Changed line(s) 2 from:
n
* Given the way some fans talk about Ruby, there is a valid entry for her under TheyWastedAPerfectlyGoodCharacter, centring solely on the fact she\'s a main character but hasn\'t been developed or explored as much fans would expect from a main character, especially as other characters have had that kind of development or exploration. I agree with Zaptach that most of her entry is either complaining or factually wrong.
to:
* Given the way some fans talk about Ruby, she is a valid example, due to being a main character that hasn\\\'t been developed or explored as much fans would expect from a main character, especially as other characters have had that kind of development or exploration. I agree with Zaptech that most of her entry is either complaining or factually wrong.
Changed line(s) 2 from:
n
* Given the way some fans talk about Ruby, there is a valid entry for her under TheyWastedAPerfectlyGoodCharacter, centring solely on the fact she\'s a main character but hasn\'t been developed or explored as much fans would expect from a main character, especially as other characters have had that kind of development or exploration.
* Blake\'s entry is just complaining about various different things that happened that people don\'t like. It\'s even completely wrong in places. I don\'t believe there\'s a valid example of the trope salvageable from Blake\'s entry, and that it should be removed entirely. We know the creators didn\'t want her behaviour to be 100% sympathetic, and some of her poorer decisions and behaviour have been called out in-universe, too. There\'s too much of a problem with the \'unintentional\' part of the trope.
* Blake\'s entry is just complaining about various different things that happened that people don\'t like. It\'s even completely wrong in places. I don\'t believe there\'s a valid example of the trope salvageable from Blake\'s entry, and that it should be removed entirely. We know the creators didn\'t want her behaviour to be 100% sympathetic, and some of her poorer decisions and behaviour have been called out in-universe, too. There\'s too much of a problem with the \'unintentional\' part of the trope.
to:
* Given the way some fans talk about Ruby, there is a valid entry for her under TheyWastedAPerfectlyGoodCharacter, centring solely on the fact she\\\'s a main character but hasn\\\'t been developed or explored as much fans would expect from a main character, especially as other characters have had that kind of development or exploration. I agree with Zaptach that most of her entry is either complaining or factually wrong.
* Blake\\\'s entry is just complaining about various different things that happened that people don\\\'t like. It\\\'s also factually wrong in places. I don\\\'t believe there\\\'s a valid example of the trope salvageable from Blake\\\'s entry, and that it should be removed entirely. We know the creators didn\\\'t want her behaviour to be 100% sympathetic, and some of her poorer decisions and behaviour have been called out in-universe, too. There\\\'s too much of a problem with the \\\'unintentional\\\' part of the trope.
* Blake\\\'s entry is just complaining about various different things that happened that people don\\\'t like. It\\\'s also factually wrong in places. I don\\\'t believe there\\\'s a valid example of the trope salvageable from Blake\\\'s entry, and that it should be removed entirely. We know the creators didn\\\'t want her behaviour to be 100% sympathetic, and some of her poorer decisions and behaviour have been called out in-universe, too. There\\\'s too much of a problem with the \\\'unintentional\\\' part of the trope.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I agree on both points.
to:
Fishysaur, I agree on both points.
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
What she thinks and feels is unusually not discussed and only occasionally hinted at. Only once does she discuss how she feels about the deaths of two of her friends. As a result, she\'s seen as a passive character who is under-developed and who only reacts to the story instead of being part of it.
to:
Changed line(s) 12 from:
n
to:
