N
Nanophage
Guest
All characters can have depth, however it seems less about the possibility of depth and more about the hibutuality of it. More often then not, stories involving damsels in distress have somewhat mainstream personalities relating to the time they were created and the purpose they serve. For example, Princess Peach from mario used to just be a more or less prize instead of a person, an object that needed to be retrived for a poorly contrived situation. However at the time it didn't matter.
Now you have princesses less like Sleeping Beauty, who was trusting and somewhat... I mean very naive, to someone like Rapunzel in the movie Tangled who is reckless and Naive. Some of the key elements of the character remain but a large portion of the premise changed. Villans can be just as prosthetic as some damsels, however that has been less and less the case over the years.
Both villans, and damsels have developed more since their conception like everything in the world. Recently it seems that there are more villans with justification and purpose then there are damsels to the point where instead of having a person be the target that is rescued it is more an object like it was in the beginning.
So it is sterotypical to have a villain with more personality and depth then a damsel, people usualy fight for a prize, a goal. For the reason of humanities dynamic and chaotic persoanlities it is less likely that they would fight for the person. It is just easier to fight for an object then a person. In most stories where a someone is kidnapped for some reason, it seems the hero's objective to save the person because of love then it is for them to save the person themselves. It occurs for the reason they want to feel the emotion and less directly cause of the person. You will find less people willing to risk his/her life for someone they do not know then for their wife for the fear of losing the feelings that are garnered from interaction with the person.
This is not saying that there are no damsels with depth and not that there is less damsels with depth then there are villans with depth. However it has become more mainstream to have villans with depth then damsels. Someone could clearly argue against this, and there are most definently holes in this arguement. But this is based on the evidence I have seen so its a more uninformed and limited arguement.
Just saying
Now you have princesses less like Sleeping Beauty, who was trusting and somewhat... I mean very naive, to someone like Rapunzel in the movie Tangled who is reckless and Naive. Some of the key elements of the character remain but a large portion of the premise changed. Villans can be just as prosthetic as some damsels, however that has been less and less the case over the years.
Both villans, and damsels have developed more since their conception like everything in the world. Recently it seems that there are more villans with justification and purpose then there are damsels to the point where instead of having a person be the target that is rescued it is more an object like it was in the beginning.
So it is sterotypical to have a villain with more personality and depth then a damsel, people usualy fight for a prize, a goal. For the reason of humanities dynamic and chaotic persoanlities it is less likely that they would fight for the person. It is just easier to fight for an object then a person. In most stories where a someone is kidnapped for some reason, it seems the hero's objective to save the person because of love then it is for them to save the person themselves. It occurs for the reason they want to feel the emotion and less directly cause of the person. You will find less people willing to risk his/her life for someone they do not know then for their wife for the fear of losing the feelings that are garnered from interaction with the person.
This is not saying that there are no damsels with depth and not that there is less damsels with depth then there are villans with depth. However it has become more mainstream to have villans with depth then damsels. Someone could clearly argue against this, and there are most definently holes in this arguement. But this is based on the evidence I have seen so its a more uninformed and limited arguement.
Just saying