Please don't put Wuk Lamat in the patches

[chizLemons]

Not a good example I'm afraid. ARR's Alphinaud was arrogant and annoying has nothing to good or bad writing, it was because he's meant to be that way. Even if Ishakawa herself was his writer in ARR, I doubt his overall personality would have changed much. HW's Alphinaud exist because ARR's Alphinaud was set up to fail ... on purpose. He grow in HW because he has room to grow after ARR threw him all the way to the bottom, samething can't say about our current resident orange cat.

Never said it was. I think you're misunderstanding and overcomplicating what I'm trying to say. It's more that, a different writer, with better ideas for him and a more well-thought development, was able to make him a more interesting character. I don't think he was meant to be as unlikable as he was during base-ARR, but that's another discussion.
And no, I do not think a character has to be a "goodie two shoes fluffy anime cheese cake" to be likable. Please don't assume things I never said.

My overall argument is just that the character isn't the problem, and getting rid of them won't solve the main issue. If you don't change the writing, even if you get rid of the character, the problem won't be solved. Even in different iterations of the same character, there still must be elements that make us identify them as THEM, thus separating them from the writer. And I honestly think that those traits that make Wuk Lamat identifiable as herself could be well used by a good writer. That's it. That means THE CHARACTER isn't the problem, but how she was written.

You're saying something completely different. If a fictional character exists in two different media, they are considered different character who came from one source material.

I would say that iteration of the character suck, because that particular writer sucks.

See, you just agreed with me. If you just said "the iteration of the character suck", you just separated the character from the writing, like I'm trying to tell you. You identify that character as a separate entity that was treated differently by another writer.
Do you agree that Wuk Lamat could not suck as a character if the writer were competent? It wouldn't be about changing her personality, but making her actions coherent with her motivations, giving her well developed growth and appropriate space in the narrative.

That's how you separate character from writing.
That's what I'm trying to tell you from the beginning.

My point is, getting rid of Wuk Lamat will make us breathe a little from finally being away from her after DT, but if the writers don't change, nothing will be solved long term.

Really I was just answering your "And ... how do you differentiate between the two?" over there.

[Raven2014]

My overall argument is just that the character isn't the problem, and getting rid of them won't solve the main issue.

Depending on the particular issue. In the case of Wuk, it will very likely solve it.

- How can you fix a flat character? Make them less flat.

- How can you fix a shallow character? Give them more depth.

But what is WL's main issue? I think I can speak for quite a few people when I say her main issue is there is too much Wuk Lamat. And how can you fix that issue? To remove, to have less. Because any other attempt to fix will mean you gonna give the players even more Wuk Lamat, which will make the issue even worse. This is not uncommon in TV shows, if a character's is written into a wall and they're perceived as the poison chalice, it's not uncommon for the character to be ease out from future season.

See, you just agreed with me. If you just said "the iteration of the character suck", you just separated the character from the writing, like I'm trying to tell you.

No I didn't, I always tie the character to their writer.

My point is, getting rid of Wuk Lamat will make us breathe a little from finally being away from her after DT, but if the writers don't change, nothing will be solved long term.

Depend on what they do you can be half right.

Let's say a chief mess up, put in too much heat and burnt a corner of the dish. If the (same) chief realize the mistake, they can reduce the heat, and try to save the dish by cutting out the part that was burnt.

Even if you're going to bring in a 5-star iron chief to replace the current one, they still gonna have to cut off that burn section because they won't just be able to magically revert it to normal.

And to me, WL is that burnt portion. Feel free to disagree, but yeah WL is "that bad" to me.

The reason I say you are half right because yes, ideally I think they should swap the writing team on the ground of competency. But even a new team won't be able to save WL, not in the near future. She gonna have to be put on a long cool down period at the very least.

Really I was just answering your "And ... how do you differentiate between the two?" over there.

The problem with your logic is that if you just separated the two, then there will never be such a thing as a bad character, or good character for that matter. Which will render any character discussion essentially moot. In your own example, Alphinaugh went from bad to good because the writers change. If you use that as proof of Alphinaugh has always been a good character ... does that mean he would still be a good character, even if his writer never changed from ARR? Do you see the contradiction here?

If a character can never be bad (or good), what is the point of saying the character isn't bad? That's why I asked in my first post: do you have an example of a universally bad character that even a god tier writer won't be able to make good?

My point is fictional characters don't write themselves, they are not a separated entity from the person writing them. That's why I don't separate them, when I say "this character is bad", it's a synonym to "the writing of this character is bad" and vice versa. I just prefer the former because it's a shorter sentence.

My definition of good and bad character is actually quite simple because it has nothing to do with what they are or how they act: good characters fullfill their intended roles, otherwise they are bad. That's it.

I think she may be about to get Lyse'd

I'm actually hoping she will get Minfiliaed.

Don't think she's deserved a Moenbrydaed, that would be too harsh but Lyse'd felt a bit too linen.