How crazy is it that I, an unknowing college student, know characters better than their writers? Long has there been the debate of characters straying from their usual characteristics and making a choice completely out of left field. Fan favorite characters being massacred by poor writing and a deep misunderstanding of what exactly this character stands for. But how can they be ‘out-of-character’ when their creator is the one that wrote it? 

Well, writers don’t always know best. See writers have a goal; keep their story entertaining. Sometimes in order to keep a story entertaining, the writers must search deep inside and pull out the most nonsensical plot line just for a little shock value. 

Take “The 100” (MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!) Clarke killed her best friend for reasons so stupid I can’t even begin to process it. She was given the opportunity seasons earlier to kill him and couldn’t because she loved and needed him too much. They worked together as the head and the heart, with her being the head. When it came down to it, she didn’t use her head; she didn’t even use her heart. Under the guise of protecting her child, she killed him so he didn’t use a sketchbook to protect their future. Boom, a main character killed in the middle of season with no build up and no resolution; that is what I call shock value. I also call that bad writing, because why would a woman dedicated to saving humanity kill her best friend for trying to save humanity? 

However, on the other hand, sometimes they make decisions that are completely in character, but fans just don’t want to admit it. For example, Sam and Dean Winchester are coddled by the “Supernatural” community. Dean, especially, is seen as this golden-boy who would never disrespect women. I see fans excusing misogynistic comments because the “writers are projecting.” Hey, I get it completely, the writers made the script and they chose to include that strange line about high school cheerleaders. However, Dean said things like this every season, so despite the writer’s projections, it is indeed a personality trait of Dean.   

This is another argument for another day; the annoying need for writers to project their ideals onto their characters. I agree that Dean did deserve better than being the puppet boy for gross throw-away lines about women’s bodies. But, fans don’t acknowledge that this is still an unfortunate personality trait of Dean, because the writers are consistent. These comments make sense for Dean to make, because that is how the writers always wrote him. 

Either way, the beautiful thing about writing is how subjective it is. So whether or not I agree or disagree with a character’s decision making sense, other fans may see it as the perfect decision. Clarke wanted to protect her daughter, who means more to her than humanity, and so she eliminated the threat. Dean respected women and we see that in episodes where he treats them as strong, independent hunters, despite their stature or strength. These are both completely valid takes, but they just aren’t mine. 

I am curious however, is it possible for a writer to write their own character’s wrong? Is it possible for a writer to not know their character at all? I remain on the fence.